dna gnissessa ot hcaorppa tnirpdnaH nobraC ehT fo tcapmi etamilc evitisop eht gnitacinummoc

stcudorp

NBSI 0-9768-83-159-879 :LRU( snoitacilbup/tcapmi/moc.hcraeserttv.www//:ptth ) 1121-2422 L-NSSI

X221-2422 NSSI )enilnO(:NBSI:NRU/fi.nru//:ptth 0-9768-83-159-879

/gro.iod//:sptth

Y

GO

LO

NH

CE

T T

TV

64

3 .

..ot

h

ca

orp

pa

tni

rp

dn

aH

no

bra

C e

hT

tnirpdnaH nobraC ehT dna gnissessa ot hcaorppa evitisop eht gnitacinummoc stcudorp fo tcapmi etamilc

nenataV ajiaS | namnörG asiaK | alujaP aniiT | alokhiP annaH | akkuoS otsiR | nenirusaK ileH |

mheB irtaK | lahtnehoH anirahtaC | namlliS inaJ | onieL ajiaM

YGOLONHCET TTV 643

TTV YGOLONHCET 643

tnirpdnaH nobraC ehT dna gnissessa ot hcaorppa evitisop eht gnitacinummoc stcudorp fo tcapmi etamilc

tnirpdnaH nobraC eht fo tropeR laniF tcejorp

mheB irtaK ,alokhiP annaH ,alujaP aniiT ,nenataV ajiaS lahtnehoH anirahtaC &

dtL dnalniF fo ertneC hcraeseR lacinhceT TTV

inaJ ,nenirusaK ileH ,akkuoS otsiR ,namnörG asiaK onieL ajiaM & namlliS

ytisrevinU TUL

NBSI 0-9768-83-159-879 :LRU( snoitacilbup/tcapmi/moc.hcraeserttv.www//:ptth )

TTV ygolonhceT 643

L-NSSI 1121-2422 NSSI X221-2422 )enilnO(

:NBSI:NRU/fi.nru//:ptth 0-9768-83-159-879 /gro.iod//:sptth

TTV © thgirypoC 8102

REHSILBUP – ERAVIGTU – AJISIAKLUJ

yO TTV sukseksumiktut naigolonkeT )oopsE ,A 4 eitnakiinkeT( 0001 LP

TTV 44020 1007 227 020 iskaf ,111 227 020 .huP

bA TTV nelartnecsgninksrof aksigolonkeT )obsE ,A 4 negävkinkeT( 0001 BP

TTV 44020-IF 1007 227 02 853+ xafelet ,111 227 02 853+ nfT

dtL dnalniF fo ertneC hcraeseR lacinhceT TTV )oopsE ,A 4 eitnakiinkeT( 0001 xoB .O.P

dnalniF ,TTV 44020-IF 1007 227 02 853+ xaf ,111 227 02 853+ .leT

3

PrefaceThis is the final report of the Carbon Handprint project (2016-2018). The project wascarried out in close cooperation between VTT and LUT. Responsibilities of the par-ticipating organizations and researchers were as follows: Saija Vatanen acted asthe project manager and coordinated the work. In LUT, Kaisa Grönman acted as aproject manager and Risto Soukka as the responsible leader. Interviews were con-ducted in cooperation by researchers from VTT and LUT. Kaisa Grönman, TiinaPajula, Saija Vatanen, Risto Soukka and Heli Kasurinen were responsible for thedevelopment of the carbon handprint approach, and prepared Chapters 1,2,3 andthe general conclusions presented in Chapter 6 of this report. Hanna Pihkola wasresponsible for the review and guidelines related to communication, and writing ofChapter 4. Case studies were conducted by Katri Behm, Saija Vatanen, CatharinaHohenthal, Kaisa Grönman, Maija Leino and Jani Sillman, who contributed in Chap-ter 5. Heli Kasurinen and Kaisa Grönman were responsible for considering the ap-plicability of the handprint concept in other environmental impacts, and wrote chap-ter 6.1. together. The report was edited by Saija Vatanen, Kaisa Grönman, HannaPihkola and Heli Kasurinen.

The project was funded by Business Finland, the project’s industrial partners(AM Finland, AO-allover, Biolan, Gasum, KONE, the Association of Finnish Steeland Metal Producers, Neste, Nokia, Paptic), the Finnish Innovation Fund (Sitra),VTT and LUT. The intention of the project was to create calculation and communi-cation guidelines for quantifying a product’s positive climate effects.This report presents the main findings of the project and the results from the sevencase studies in which a handprint was calculated for different products, services andtechnologies. For a detailed presentation of the carbon handprint approach, seeGrönman et al. (2019) in the Journal of Cleaner Production. For practical guidelineson performing a carbon handprint assessment, please refer to the Carbon HandprintGuide (https://www.vtt.fi/sites/handprint/).

4

ContentsPreface .............................................................................................................. 3

1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 5

2. Carbon handprint approach ........................................................................ 8

2.1 Handprint definition ................................................................................ 92.2 Who can calculate carbon handprints? ................................................. 12

3. Steps in the carbon handprint calculation ................................................ 13

3.1 Stage 1: Identification of the operating environment .............................. 143.2 Stage 2: Defining LCA requirements ..................................................... 183.3 Stage 3: Quantification of the handprint ................................................ 193.4 Stage 4: Communication ...................................................................... 20

4. Carbon handprint communication ............................................................ 21

4.1 Main needs of handprint communication ............................................... 214.2 Existing guidelines for environmental communication and marketing ..... 22

4.2.1 Principles for environmental communication............................... 224.2.2 Consumer protection and fair competition .................................. 24

4.3 Potential challenges in communication ................................................. 264.4 Conclusions and recommendations related to communication ............... 284.5 Checklist for planning and preparing handprint communication.............. 29

5. Case studies .............................................................................................. 31

5.1 Base station cooling technology from a wireless network serviceprovider ............................................................................................... 31

5.2 Elevator technology from an elevator manufacturer ............................... 365.3 Renewable diesel from a fuel manufacturer .......................................... 425.4 Biodegradable shopping bags from a material manufacturer ................. 475.5 Carpet with optional cleaning service from an interior design company .. 515.6 Additive manufacturing technology ....................................................... 555.7 Biowaste treatment solution from a composter manufacturer ................. 58

6. Conclusions and discussion..................................................................... 64

6.1 Handprint concept’s applicability to other environmental impacts ........... 65

References ...................................................................................................... 69

AbstractTiivistelmä

5

1. Introduction

Assessing environmental impacts has traditionally focused on measuring and mod-elling the negative effects that products, services and companies cause to the en-vironment. In many organizations, it is already common to assess resource use oremissions caused as a result of their activities. These assessment practices arethoroughly guided with standards established for life cycle assessment (LCA) (ISO14040, 2006; ISO 14044, 2006), carbon footprint (ISO, 14067, 2018) and waterfootprint (ISO 14046, 2014).

The majority of companies in the developed world recognizes minimizing re-source consumption and emissions as a pressing challenge. However, some com-panies already have a depth environmental know-how and have succeeded in con-ducting their operations resource efficiently with minimal emissions and waste. Oth-ers are going yet further – develop products, services and technologies that reducethe environmental impacts of their customers. However, there is currently no recog-nized method available to these cleantech and frontrunner companies for calculat-ing and communicating the environmental benefits of their actions.

Environmental claims related to products and services should always be honest,specific and verified. Several international and national guidelines and standardsprovide guidelines for making these claims (see e.g. ISO 14021 2016; ICC Com-mission on Marketing and Advertising 2011; Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Environ-mental Claims 2016; Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2002). From theregulatory point of view, ensuring the truthfulness of green claims is related to con-sumer protection and preventing unfair commercial practices and competition.Vague or generic claims about sustainability or positive environmental impacts re-lated to products may be considered as greenwashing and should only be presentedin cases where clear evidence is available. However, specific methods and ap-proaches for measuring positive impacts and thus providing such evidence hasbeen lacking.

The challenge of communicating the positive impacts of products and serviceshas been recognized in the green marketing literature. To tackle credibility chal-lenges, Ramirez et al. (2014) recommend more consistent communication of a sus-tainable product’s economic benefits and positive environmental impacts. Further-more, sustainability-oriented customers can be a significant market for some com-panies (Patala et al. 2016). Access to this market requires rigorous demonstrationand communication of the expected sustainability benefits of product and service

6

offerings. The need for communicating positive environmental impacts has beenidentified by researchers such as Pihkola et al. (2010) and Tynkkynen andBerninger (2017). Bjørn and Hauschild (2013) emphasize the need to introduce pos-itive product attributes to LCA.

Whereas the ‘footprint’ concept is universally applied with respect to negativeenvironmental impacts, the lesser known ‘handprint’ concept can be used to referto positive impacts. The handprint concept was launched in 2007 by UNESCO as ameasure of education for sustainable development action, aiming to decrease thehuman footprint (Handprint Action Toward Sustainability, n.d.), and Biemer et al.(2013) and Norris (2015) have since further emphasized the environmental ap-proach to handprinting. Whereas the aim of the footprint concept is to reduce neg-ative effects to close to zero, with the handprint concept there is no upper limit onthe positive effects that can be achieved (Biemer et al. 2013).

In an ongoing German handprint project (Handabdruck), measurement, evalua-tion and communication tools for the ecological, economic and social impacts ofproducts are being created (Beckmann 2017) with the ambitious goal of taking intoaccount all three pillars of sustainability. In a similar vein, in Handprint-Based Net-Positive Assessment both the environmental and social impacts of products andactions are addressed (Norris 2013).

The handprint approaches of Biemer et al. (2013) and Norris (2015) highlight thepositive reinforcement loop of doing good versus doing harm. They emphasize thatpositive action promotes other positive actions, e.g. in terms of people educatingeach other regarding accrued knowledge. Although this is true in many cases, it ishard to prove and even harder to measure and allocate to someone’s credit. Biemeret al. (2013) also include the possibility of creating handprints through buying carbonoffsets.

Industries and companies have already recognized the need to communicate theenvironmental benefit of their products over others in the market. The chemical in-dustry (ICCA and WBCSD, 2013) and ICT industry (GeSI, Global e-SustainabilityInitiative) have addressed this issue from their own perspectives. The chemical sec-tor has introduced industry-related guidance (ICCA & WBCSD 2013) and guidelinesfor calculating and reporting avoided emissions are being compiled, while compa-nies such as Outotec (Outotec 2015) have launched their own handprint initiatives.

The handprint concept has emerged as a response to the demand for a methodto quantify the positive impacts of a product. However, the handprint concept hasbeen simultaneously developed by multiple researchers and industries. This unco-ordinated development work has led to a multitude of definitions and scopes for thehandprint concept, which requires consistent clarification. The differences in the ex-isting handprint approaches call for harmonized guidelines in order for handprintsto become an established and reliable means of corporate communication.

This report provides a universal definition of handprint that is scientificallygrounded and can be used in stakeholder communication. Furthermore, this reportspecifically defines the concept of carbon handprint. As a second objective, the re-port provides general guidelines for the LCA-based quantification of a carbon

7

handprint of an organization’s products. Thirdly, as the main input for the method-ology development, seven case studies were examined. The case studies and theirfindings are presented in Chapter 5.

This report is divided into the following parts: a presentation of the theoreticalbackground and calculation guidelines of the proposed carbon handprint approach;an examination of handprint communication;a demonstration of carbon handprintapproach with actual case calculations; and, finally, discussion and conclusions inwhich the applicability of the handprint concept to other environmental categories isalso discussed.

8

2. Carbon handprint approach

Our development of the carbon handprint approach is based on multiple lines ofinvestigation: literature review, interviews and case studies. First, we reviewed theexisting research on assessing positive environmental impacts (e.g. Biemer, Dixon,and Blackburn, 2013; ICCA and WBCSD, 2013; Norris, 2015). We also closely ex-plored the guidance and standards given for carbon footprint calculation (ISO14067, 2013; WBCSD and WRI, 2004) and LCA (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044,2006) as we aim to base the carbon handprint approach as consistently as possibleon the LCA guidelines approved by the scientific community. For deeper examina-tion of the existing studies, see Grönman et al. (2019).

Secondly, we interviewed companies and associations about their expectationsof and preparedness for carbon handprinting. A total of 20 interviews were con-ducted with operators in the manufacturing, ICT, chemical, construction, paper,food, recycling, and consulting sectors. The 14 companies interviewed includedboth SMEs and large international companies. The six associations interviewed rep-resented NGOs and trade associations. The interviews comprehensively coveredthe range of lifecycle aspects, from raw material processing and manufacturing toend-of-life. The interviewees’ experience of environmental impact assessment var-ied from ‘no experience at all’ to ‘several years of expertise.’

The majority of respondents (ca. 75%) had already used lifecycle thinking, andthe main purpose of previous LCA studies had been for communications and mar-keting purposes. Almost half of the respondents (9) had in some way calculatedpositive aspects, for example in terms of avoided emissions. The benefits ofhandprinting were considered to be multifold and ideal for internal education or pro-cess management within the company. Handprints were also considered a sourceof attraction for new customers and so were incorporated into branding and market-ing initiatives. Communicating the benefits of handprints was seen as very importantand, therefore, companies should strive to make them easy and simple to under-stand. In order to support this goal we reviewed the available guidelines and stand-ards relevant to environmental communication. We considered this to be importantas any positive environmental claims should be presented in a harmonized andtransparent way in order to increase trust towards the handprint approach.

In the following section the concept of carbon handprint is defined and presented.This is followed by communication section and a step-by-step guidance on conduct-ing a carbon handprint calculation.

9

2.1 Handprint definition

We define the handprint and carbon handprint as follows (See Figure 1):

Figure 1 Handprint and carbon handprint definitions.

Organization can create a carbon handprint via several contributors. The organiza-tion can provide a raw material, a part, a component, a fuel, a technology, a process,a product or a service, here referred to as product that can be shown to reduce theGHG emissions of another product system. Another product system can representthe customer or the actor using the product or further processing or selling it. Theproduct can reduce the carbon footprint of customer by influencing in the followingways:

1) Material use: Replacing non-renewable / GHG intensive materials / Avoid-ing material use / Increasing material-use efficiency

2) Energy use: Replacing non-renewable / GHG intensive energy and fuels /Avoiding energy/fuel use / Increasing energy efficiency

3) Waste: Reducing waste and losses / Contributing to recycling, reuse, andremanufacture

4) Lifetime and Performance: Lengthening the lifetime of a product / Ena-bling the performance improvement of a product

5) Carbon capture and storage: Contributing to GHG sinks through land-usechange / Removal of carbon into biomass / Storing of carbon into products

Whether the studied product will achieve a carbon handprint is revealed by compar-ing the carbon footprints of the two systems. The carbon handprint is created if thecarbon footprint of a customer’s product system is smaller when applying handprintproduct than it is by using baseline product, see the equation and Figure 2:

10

The carbon handprint is equal to the reduction of the carbon footprint of a customer,but the term ‘handprint’ is announced to the product of the organization that providesthis solution. Thus, the product that enables the footprint reduction has a handprint.

Figure 2. Reduced carbon footprint is equal to the created carbon handprint.

A carbon handprint can be created either by offering a product with a lower carbonfootprint than the baseline product (Handprint solution A in Figure 3) or by helpingthe customer to reduce the footprint of his processes (Handprint solution B in Figure3), or both. The GHG reduction, when compared to the baseline, can already occurin the processes of the carbon handprint solution provider, so long as they providethe solution with less GHG emissions than the baseline solution provider.

ℎ =

−

WhereCarbon handprintProduct =Carbon handprint of a product that is applied by a customer

Carbon footprintBaseline solution =Carbon footprint of the customer’s product system applying baseline product

Carbon footprintHandprint solution =Carbon footprint of the customer’s product system applying handprint product

11

Another basic option is that the carbon footprint of the customer’s product can bereduced with the help of the carbon handprint solution provider’s product. An exam-ple could be food packaging that is produced with low carbon emissions and thatadditionally helps to extend the food’s shelf life compared to the baseline packaging,thus preventing food waste.

Figure 3. Two basic means for a carbon handprint to be created by the reductionof carbon footprints (CF).

We suggest to clearly differentiate the improvements undertaken within an organi-zation’s own production system as reductions of one’s footprint. Reducing one’sown footprint alone is not creating a handprint. Handprint is an indication of the totalfootprint of a product when used by a (potential) customer. Companies with a poorenvironmental performance currently have great potential for achieving reductionsin their own footprint. This is still not yet a handprint, but a necessity to be prioritizedfirst in order to deserve a place in the market and have a license to operate. At thesame time, forerunner companies have already improved their performance to thetop class of resource-efficient and sustainable actors. There is less and less roomfor improvement in their own functions (reduction of one’s own footprint) but plentyof options to help others to reduce their footprints (handprint).

12

A carbon handprint functions as a marketing and communication tool. For a cus-tomer, the possibility of reducing their footprint can prove to be a considerable salesargument. A carbon handprint also offers a means for identifying whether there is aneed to further develop one’s product in order to create a handprint. A handprintassessment might reveal that the difference in resulting carbon footprints is minimalwhen compared to a baseline product, or even that the baseline product might havea smaller footprint.

2.2 Who can calculate carbon handprints?

Quantification of the carbon handprint is based on a carbon footprint calculationconsisting of a life cycle assessment (LCA) that is limited to GHG emissions. Exper-tise in LCA and a thorough knowledge of the ISO 14067 standard on the carbonfootprint of products is therefore a necessity.

Additionally, to understand the operational environment and to set the baseline,experts acquainted with the product, the considered application, and the examinedmarket must be involved in the study.

13

3. Steps in the carbon handprint calculation

The handprint calculation process consists of four stages and ten steps and isclosely based on the LCA method (See Figure 4). In the first stage, which is specificto handprint calculation, the conditions of the examined operational environment areidentified in order to set a baseline against which a potential handprint can be cre-ated. This stage is followed by typical LCA steps and standard footprint calculations.Finally, the communication part is implemented according to the target audience.As with LCA in general, handprint quantification is essentially an iterative process:the findings of a subsequent step may require the updating of prior steps.

Figure 4. Stages and steps of the carbon handprint approach.

14

3.1 Stage 1: Identification of the operating environment

Step 1: Identify customers of the product

Carbon handprint is always quantified for a specific situation and a specific type ofuser. Without a user applying the examined product, no handprint can be created.Therefore, the first step is to identify potential users of the studied product, herereferred to as customers. There may be multiple ways of using the product, and itsenvironmental impact will differ depending on the customer and the geographicalmarket. It is therefore necessary to differentiate between customer types. The ex-ample carbon handprint framework in Figure 5 can help to differentiate aspects af-fecting the handprint calculation. It is useful to identify a number of potential cus-tomers even though only one will be selected for the handprint study.

15

Figure 5. A fictional example of carbon handprint framework for bread packagingused in different bakeries.

16

Step 2: Identify potential carbon handprint contributors

Contrary to carbon footprint, which represents the absolute sum of GHG emissionsand removals in a product system (expressed as CO2 equivalents), carbonhandprint refers to a change that will result in a beneficial climate impact. The aimof this step is to identify the hypothetical benefits of the product. How will the productcontribute to reducing the customer’s carbon footprint? Figure 6 introduces variouscontributors by which a carbon footprint can be reduced and may help to identifythe potential pros and cons of the product.

Figure 6. Main carbon handprint contributors.

This process of quantifying the carbon handprint is time and resource intensive. Itis recommended to do some screening before starting the full process. Often morethan one factor will change, making it difficult to estimate the overall effect at aglance. To gain a better understanding of the potential handprint, a preliminary as-sessment and screening of possible factors contributing to carbon footprint can becarried out. This can be done using rough data and modelling. Alternatively, an ex-pert panel consisting of industrial and sustainability experts can be called togetherto discuss and evaluate possible carbon footprint reduction pathways. Only a fullhandprint quantification will show whether the selected product will have a handprintin reality. The hypothesis is important, however, in order to define a properlygrounded baseline and product system boundaries, as described in the steps below.

17

Step 3: Define the baseline

To be able to quantify the amount of reduced GHG emissions, a baseline situationmust be determined as a point of comparison. The baseline refers to the alternativeor current solution in place that delivers the same functions to the customer as theproduct we are evaluating, that is, the handprint solution.

Unless the product is new on the market, the baseline and the handprint solutionshould both:

· Deliver the same function· Be used for the same purpose· Be available in the market and used in the defined time period and geo-

graphic region· Be assessed in a consistent manner (in terms of data quality, representa-

tiveness, system boundaries, assumptions, etc.)

How the baseline is defined will clearly have a major impact on the handprint result:choosing a “worst possible” baseline with a poor environmental performance willincrease the handprint significantly. The baseline definition must, therefore, be wellgrounded and transparently reported.

Two fundamental questions affect the baseline. The first is whether the productthat is presumed to create a handprint is replacing another product or is new to themarket. If the product is new, a comparison will need to be made between the cur-rent situation with and without the new product. If, instead, the product replacesanother product, this leads to the second fundamental question: Is the targeted ap-plication company-specific?

If the customer using the product is known, the baseline, i.e. the current productto be replaced, can be precisely identified. However, if the product is released tothe market with a range of potential customers and uses in mind, a number of dif-ferent baselines will need to be considered. If a certain product can be clearly iden-tified as the market leader, this should be used as the baseline. For example, shop-ping bags made of renewable raw material (potentially creating a handprint) offer aclear replacement for the plastic bags currently used in shops and supermarkets(the baseline). However, sometimes it is not possible to single out one type of prod-uct from the market as the obvious replaceable product. For example, the environ-mental performance of currently used traffic fuels varies considerably. If you intro-duce a new type of fuel it is essentially impossible to identify an exact fuel type thatit will replace. In such cases, the average should be taken from all options and usedas the baseline. A third option is to use the available product specifications, stand-ards or BREF specifications as baselines. This would be justified in cases wherethe business-as-usual technologies are plentiful and data on competitors is hard toattain. The baseline situation may also be a combination of multiple baseline prod-ucts to be replaced if the handprint solution is a multi-functional product.

18

3.2 Stage 2: Defining LCA requirements

This stage is based on the standard LCA procedure and carbon footprinting in ac-cordance with ISO 14040-44 and ISO 14067.

Step 4: Define the functional unit

The functional unit serves as the basis for quantifying the performance of the studiedproduct system. The primary purpose of a functional unit is to provide a referenceon which evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions can be based. This reference isnecessary to ensure comparability of the handprint solution to the baseline solution.A system may have a number of possible functions. The one selected for a studydepends on the customer and what the customer uses the product for. More infor-mation about defining the functional unit can be found in ISO 14040-44.

Step 5: Define the system boundaries

The system boundary defines the unit processes to be included in the system. Ide-ally, the product system should be modelled in such a manner that inputs and out-puts at its boundary are elementary flows (drawn from the environment and releasedinto the environment). However, the exclusion of life cycle stages, processes, inputsor outputs within the system under study is permitted if they do not significantlychange the overall conclusions of the study. The selection of the system boundaryhas to be consistent with the goal of the study and equal in baseline and handprintsolutions.

The baseline determination procedure:1. Is the product new on the market?

a. YES à Use the current situation without the new product as thebaseline

b. NOà Go to question 22. Can the customer be specified?

a. YESà Use the customer’s current product or another option avail-able on the market as the baseline (not the previous generationproduct of the handprint provider)

b. NOà Choose one of the following as the baseline:i. Market leader or typical product in the identified reference

area and timeii. Average product in the identified reference area and timeiii. Product specification or BREF that determines the avail-

able options

19

The criteria used in establishing the system boundary should be explained. In thehandprint approach it is a necessity to include the product use stage (intended cus-tomer application) in the system. Furthermore, in most cases the end-of-life stagehas an influence on the overall conclusions and needs to be included. Setting thesystem boundaries is elaborated in ISO 14040-44 and ISO 14067.

Step 6: Define data needs and sources

After setting the system boundaries the data needs are identified and data is col-lected. In carbon handprinting, there are two types of premises: the actual customeris known, or the customer cannot be determined but potential customers or cus-tomer groups can be identified. If the customer can be specified, the most recentprimary data should be applied. If not, statistical or average data must be reliedupon.

Data on the main carbon handprint contributors must reflect an actual existingoperating environment in both the baseline and handprint solution. Furthermore, thedata for the baseline solution and handprint solution require the same timeframe.Where the GHG emissions and removals associated with specific unit processesvary over time, data must be collected over an appropriate time period to establishthe average GHG emissions and removals associated with the life cycle of the prod-uct.

The data used should be representative in terms of geographical, time-related,and technological coverage, as well as being precise and complete, as determinedin ISO 14040-44 and ISO 14067. However, whereas in carbon footprint calculationsthe time horizon is typically applied retrospectively, in the handprint approach po-tential near-future implications are assessed prospectively.

3.3 Stage 3: Quantification of the handprint

Step 7: Calculate the footprints

Using equal functional units, the carbon footprints of the two systems under com-parison are calculated following the standardized methodology of ISO 14067 Car-bon footprint of products.

Step 8: Calculate the handprint

Finally, the carbon footprints of the two systems are compared. If the carbon foot-print of the handprint solution is smaller than the carbon footprint of the practiceusing the baseline solution, then a carbon handprint has been created. The quantityof the carbon handprint is the difference between these two carbon footprints, as kgCO2 eq. One should note that the carbon handprint is strongly related to changes incircumstances and will take place only after the handprint solution has been appliedby the potential customer. Furthermore, the carbon handprint is bound to a specific

20

timeframe, whereas the baseline keeps moving over the years as more sophisti-cated solutions come to occupy the market. The handprint is valid as long as thedata used for the calculation is representative of the examined situation.

3.4 Stage 4: Communication

Step 9: Critical review of the carbon handprint

A handprint communication may be intended for business-to-business or business-to-consumer communication. ISO standard 14040-44 on LCA requires a critical re-view if the study is intended to be used for a comparative assertion intended to bedisclosed to the public. ISO 14026 on Communication of footprint information hasrequirements on comparative footprints respectively. To be in line with these re-quirements, a critical review is strongly recommended when the handprint commu-nications are used for business-to-consumer communication and the handprintquantification is based on a comparative footprint relative to another organization’sproducts.

A critical review is a helpful way to verify the calculation process and results andis recommended to be considered in all situations. To keep the procedure leaner,the independent reviewer may also be internal from the organization that conductedthe handprint study, for example in the case of business-to-business communica-tions.

Step 10: Communicate the results

A company has its carbon handprint endorsed once a customer is utilizing theirproduct instead of the baseline solution. Thus, among other purposes, the carbonhandprint functions as a marketing and communication tool. For a customer, thepossibility of reducing their footprint can prove to be a considerable sales argument.

At this point an appropriate communication unit needs to be selected. The basicmeasure of a carbon handprint is carbon dioxide equivalents. However, an informa-tive and representative reference unit may be something other than the functionalunit used in the calculations. For example, in case of calculating the carbonhandprint of a fuel, a reasonable functional unit would be based on the fuel proper-ties (e.g. energy content). However, mileage may be a more informative unit of com-munication for the customers actually using the fuel.

21

4. Carbon handprint communication

This chapter discusses specific needs related to communication of handprint re-sults. A review of existing guidelines and standards relevant to handprint communi-cation is presented, and recommendations related to communication are proposed.Finally, a checklist for preparing handprint communication that is compatible withthe existing guidelines and good practices for environmental communication is pre-sented.

4.1 Main needs of handprint communication

The core needs and challenges related to communicating handprint results werediscussed in two dedicated workshops. The first workshop was held at the begin-ning of the project in February 2017 with 35 participants comprising industry repre-sentatives and the project researchers. The focus areas of the small group discus-sions were:

· Potential target groups for handprint communication· Ideas for communicating and illustrating handprint results to different stake-

holder groups· Potential role of handprint in other sustainability communication

The second workshop held in March 2018 focussed on concrete needs related tocommunicating handprint results. The starting point for the group discussion wasthe handprint method and its specific calculation rules. Thus, a major part of thegroup discussion related to practical aspects and potential formats for communi-cating the results. In addition, existing standards and guidelines for environmentalcommunication and footprint communication were briefly reviewed, and needs re-garding specific guidelines for handprint communication were considered. In total,11 representatives of research and business organizations participated in the dis-cussion.

According to the project discussions and the two dedicated workshops, the po-tential target groups for handprint communication cover a broad range of both inter-nal and external stakeholders, including customers, employees, investors, consum-ers, policymakers and the general public. Depending on the context, the customermay be a consumer, a company or a public organization, but often the most im-portant target group is the next actor in the value chain. It was noted that as with allcommunication, handprint-related communication must be targeted according tostakeholder needs and interests.

In addition to external communication, the importance of internal communicationwas highlighted during the workshops. Employees were mentioned as one of themost important target groups for handprint communication because employees arethe ones communicating the message to external stakeholders. Handprinting wasgenerally considered particularly beneficial for communication purposes. The needfor specific guidelines for making environmental claims based on handprint results

22

was one of the main needs identified. Common guidelines were considered im-portant for avoiding potential misuse and for creating confidence among stakehold-ers. Moreover, as sustainability aspects and related communication already covera wide range of topics, and companies need to implement many different methodsand means of communication, it was considered practical for handprinting to becompatible with methods and tools already in use.

In order to prepare guidelines that would be compatible with existing methodsand tools, existing guidelines and standards for environmental marketing and com-munication were first reviewed. The aim of the review was to determine whetherexisting guidelines would be directly applicable for the purposes of handprint com-munication, or whether additional guidance specific to the handprint concept wouldbe needed. The key findings of the review are reflected on briefly in the followingchapter and discussed in relation to the key aspects of the handprint concept.

4.2 Existing guidelines for environmental communicationand marketing

Several guidelines, standards and recommendations for environmental communi-cation and marketing are available. These include guidelines prepared by nationalauthorities, such as those prepared by the Finnish Consumer Ombudsman (FinnishCompetition and Consumer Authority 2002), supporting documents related to theEuropean Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices (Multi-stakeholder Dialogue onEnvironmental Claims 2016), international guidelines (ICC Commission on Market-ing and Advertising 2011) and international standards dedicated to environmentalcommunication (ISO 14063 2010), life cycle assessment (ISO 2006a), footprintcommunication (ISO 14026 2017) and eco-labels (ISO 14021 2016).

4.2.1 Principles for environmental communication

The overall aim of the guidelines and standards is to present good practices, preventmisleading statements and unfair competition and protect consumers. The guide-lines are relevant to all environmental marketing and claims but are especially rele-vant to handprint communication, since the aim of the handprint is to communicatepositive environmental impacts. It is extremely important therefore to avoid mislead-ing statements that could be interpreted as greenwashing.

According to the European Commission’s definition of environmental claims:‘The expressions "environmental claims" or "green claims" refer to the practice

of suggesting or otherwise creating the impression (in the context of a commercialcommunication, marketing or advertising) that a product or a service, is environ-mentally friendly (i.e. it has a positive impact on the environment) or is less damag-ing to the environment than competing goods or services. This may be due to, forexample, its composition, the way it has been manufactured or produced, the wayit can be disposed of and the reduction in energy or pollution which can be expected

23

from its use. When such claims are not true or cannot be verified this practice canbe described as "green washing"’. (European Commission 2009)

It is clear from this definition that the use of handprint results as part of any com-mercial communication is considered an environmental claim. As a consequence,national and European compliance criteria for environmental claims need to be con-sidered in the context of handprint communication. Another important point is theneed for verification, which is highlighted in all available guidelines and standards.On the other hand, life cycle assessment is commonly mentioned as a scientificmethod that can or should be used for verification purposes, especially if it is verifiedby a third party. However, care must be taken in presenting the results and espe-cially when making a comparative claim or a generic claim about positive environ-mental impacts. Additionally, an important criterion shared by the reviewed commu-nication guidelines is the need to make the evidence for the claim fully or at leastpartially available to the public.

It is important to remember that most of the guidelines focus on product-basedclaims that are directed towards consumers. The ICC Framework for ResponsibleEnvironmental Marketing Communications notes that product-based claims shouldbe differentiated from announcements made by companies regarding their commit-ment or achievement of sustainability goals or future sustainability targets (ICCCommission on Marketing and Advertising 2011). Nonetheless, while more freedomcan be used in such statements, the main principles of environmental communica-tion should be applied in all contexts. According to the ICC Framework, ‘all market-ing communication should be legal, decent, honest, and truthful’, and ‘prepared witha due sense of social and professional responsibility’ (ICC Commission on Market-ing and Advertising 2011).

When considering the available standards, the European Standard EN ISO14063 Environmental Communication - Guidelines and Examples (ISO 14063 2010)provides guidance for all organizations regarding general principles, policy, strategyand activities that may relate to both internal and external environmental communi-cation, and to an organization or its products. According to the standard, the follow-ing principles should be applied in all environmental communication:

· Transparency – Processes, data and assumptions related to environmentalcommunication should be made available to all interested parties (but takinginto account confidentiality requirements).

· Appropriateness – Information should be relevant and understandable to thestakeholders

· Credibility – Communication should be conducted in an honest and fair man-ner and the information should be produced using recognized and reproduc-ible methods and indicators

· Responsiveness – All communication should be open and responsive to theneeds of interested parties

· Clarity – Communication and language used should be understandable tothe interested parties (ISO 14063 2010).

24

The generic principles presented in ISO14063 can be considered as comprehen-sive, overall guidelines for preparing environmental communication and thus also avalid guideline for handprint communication. Similar principles are repeated in re-viewed guidelines and recommendations related to making product-specific claims.While the standards and frameworks are voluntary methods and tools that compa-nies can use for supporting responsible activity, similar principles are central in bothFinnish and European legislation concerning consumer protection and fair compe-tition.

4.2.2 Consumer protection and fair competition

From a legal point of view, national and European authorities monitor the credibilityand clarity of environmental claims based on notifications made by consumers,companies and other public and private organizations. In Finland, monitoring of en-vironmental claims falls under the responsibility of the Consumer Ombudsman. Theresponsibility of the Consumer Ombudsman is to supervise that the Consumer Pro-tection Act and other laws passed to protect consumers are observed. The Con-sumer Ombudsman has published dedicated guidelines for environmental market-ing (Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2002). The guidelines are com-patible with the principles of consumer protection legislation and are intended toprovide guidance for planning a marketing campaign or advertisement in which anenvironmental claim is presented. The principles provide generic but clear guide-lines similar to the principles of environmental communication presented in the ex-isting international standards. The guidelines cover five main principles:

1. Importance of environmental impact should first be assessed – an environ-mental claim can be made if there is clear evidence of its relevance andbenefit to the consumer.

2. Environmental impact should be made clear – All claims must be presentedin an unambiguous manner – they must be precise and understandable tothe consumer. The impact of a product should not be exaggerated. If a claimcan be interpreted in a misleading way, it should not be used.

3. Overall impression should be assessed – The overall impression given bymarketing must be consistent with the available facts.

4. Generalizations are permissible only when the entire life cycle of the prod-uct is known.

5. Only compare similar products – Comparisons can only be made betweenproducts that serve a similar purpose. (Finnish Competition and ConsumerAuthority 2002)

In addition to Finland, public authorities have published similar guidelines concern-ing all types of environmental claims in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Ice-land, Norway and the UK. In addition, a variety of general and sector-specific guide-lines prepared by private organizations have been identified (Multi-stakeholder Di-alogue on Environmental Claims 2013).

25

The European Commission has published its own guidance document concern-ing compliance criteria for environmental claims1. The document has been devel-oped by the Multistakeholder Dialogue on Environmental Claims (2016). The aim ofthe guidance is to support the application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Di-rective (UCPD) (2005/29/EC) in the area of greenwashing and misleading environ-mental claims. The document provides advice on defining the contents of a greenclaim and presenting the results in a clear and accurate manner, as well as recom-mendations regarding claim substantiation and documentation. The document alsoprovides guidance regarding transparency towards consumers. The document isnot legally binding, and in case of a suspected misuse, national courts and authori-ties would perform a case-by-case assessment on whether a claim is misleading.The compliance criteria presented within the guidance document are very similarwith the criteria provided by the Finnish Consumer Ombudsman. Many nationalguidelines are mentioned as references to the guidance document.

The guidelines of specific relevance to the handprint point of view relate to en-suring clarity regarding the scope and boundaries of claims. According to the Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Environmental Claims (2016):

‘The scope and boundaries should be clear from the way it is presented. It shouldbe evident whether a claim is referring to the whole product or organization, or justspecific aspects. The particular environmental impact or process it addressesshould also be clear.’

From the handprint point of view, a critical aspect with respect to communicationis the mechanism or contributor that creates the handprint: where it originates fromand in which part of the life cycle the emission reduction takes place. Based on thecase studies and discussions held during the project, this might also be the pointthat might be most difficult to communicate in a simplified manner. This is most likelyat least partly due to the differing logic behind the creation of a handprint and afootprint.

Another main principle common to the different guidance documents is the needto avoid making generalized statements about positive environmental impacts (e.g.claiming that a product is sustainable or environmentally friendly without crediblespecification). This principle is especially relevant from the handprint point of view.If only carbon handprint is calculated, it should be made clear in all communicationthat the positive impact refers to greenhouse gas emissions, and not all environ-mental aspects.

However, even generic claims may be acceptable if there is sufficient proof of theclaimed environmental benefits of the product, in relation to other similar products(see e.g. Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Environmental Claims 2016; Finnish Com-petition and Consumer Authority 2002). Required proof could be a third-party veri-fied environmental label (such as the Nordic Swan or the EU-label), or a life cycleassessment study verified by a third party (critical review). For example, a LCAstudy applying the principles of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) could

1 Compliance criteria on Environmental Claims. Multi-stakeholder advice to support the imple-mentation/application of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC) (2016).

26

be considered as valid evidence of environmental performance if the results are inline with the claim. However, if others have presented considerable evidence ofconflicting results, the claim might be questioned even if an appropriate backgroundstudy is available. Thus, any generic claim about a product being sustainable orhaving a positive impact on the environment should always be first comprehensivelystudied and considered in order to avoid potential misunderstandings and to providesufficient background evidence to support it.

Another key principle common to all available guidance documents is transpar-ency. According to the EC’s guidance (2016), traders should consider providing thepublic with reasonably detailed explanations of the presented environmental claims.In practice, this could mean providing a summary of the findings of scientific studies,including descriptions of the nature of those studies and the organizations and ex-perts involved. Additionally, traders should consider making documentation support-ing their environmental claims publicly available. This can be done in a way thatsafeguards confidentiality, but if the supporting evidence is confidential, the guid-ance document advises traders to consider whether the claim should be made at all(Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Environmental Claims 2016). Similar requirementsregarding verification of a self-declared claim are included within the ISO14021standard concerning self-declared environmental claims, which has also been usedas one of the source documents for the abovementioned ICC Framework.

For the purposes of transparency and trust, independent verification and assur-ance of environmental claims is recommended as the default option (Multi-stake-holder Dialogue on Environmental Claims 2016). In that sense, the guidelines areclear regarding public disclosure of supporting studies or other evidence. Thus, theguidance concurs with the ISO 14040-44 standard for LCA, which requires a criticalreview when making a comparative statement for marketing purposes (ISO 2006a).

4.3 Potential challenges in communication

Specific guidance regarding communication of the LCA-based footprint related in-formation is provided in ISO14026 (ISO 14026 2017), which lists both generic prin-ciples and examples that are also useful in the case of handprint communication.According to the standard, the main principles that should be followed when com-municating footprint results are:

· Credibility and reliability – information should be relevant and reliable interms of addressing areas of concern

· Life cycle perspective – relevant life cycle stages should be considered· Comparability – comparison is possible only between products in the same

product category and having the same functional unit· Transparency – access to information on where the footprint communication

originated should be provided· Regionality – local or regional context relevant to the area where the impacts

occur should be considered (ISO 14026 2017).

27

Since a handprint is always case or value chain (or customer) specific, regionalityis an additional aspect that needs to be included in the communication. This meansthat the impacts that are communicated should be relevant also concerning the mar-ket area in question.

In the case of handprint communication, needs related to both: business-to-busi-ness and business-to-consumer communication are important. While similar princi-ples related to communication should apply in both cases, differences may occur inthe amount of details delivered, as it may be expected that in the case of a business-to-business customer more technical information about the product or the pro-cesses can and should be delivered. Or, if the same life cycle based assessmentmethods are applied by the value chain actors, more detailed information regardingthe assessment details and assumptions applied would be of interest and useful tothe receiver.

Overall, it can be concluded that the available guidance documents and frame-works, together with the LCA standards (ISO14040-44), the standard on footprintcommunication (ISO14026) and eco-labels (ISO14021) are quite clear and strict intheir demands regarding comparative claims. The existing documents should there-fore in principle provide sufficient guidance on making claims that are not misleadingand have enough background evidence. One potential difficulty from the communi-cation point of view is that LCA results have been considered difficult to understandby consumers and other stakeholders (Dahlbo et al. 2013; Nissinen et al. 2007).

In general, LCA studies include a great deal of information and assumptions thatwould need to be made clear to the receiver in order for them to properly understandthe result and its meaning (Dahlbo et al. 2013). It is therefore reasonable to assumethat similar challenges would apply to handprinting, which is based on the LCAmethodology. In addition, a common challenge related to environmental communi-cation is that even though many consumers are interested in environmental infor-mation, general awareness and knowledge related to environmental impacts andthe mechanisms behind them might be low (European Commission 2014). Conse-quently, this often leads to challenges in interpreting the meaning of environmentalclaims ascribed to products. The environmental awareness of the receivers andtheir ability to interpret the meaning of the claim must be taken into account in allenvironmental communication, and especially when making statements about po-tential positive impacts.

Since the concept of handprint is new, and the logic of creating a handprint differsfrom that of a footprint, the concept might at first be difficult to communicate andunderstand even for experts familiar with LCA and footprint vocabulary and meth-odology. Communication related to handprinting must therefore be carefully consid-ered not only with respect to consumers and other stakeholders that might not beexperts in the methodology, but also other companies and stakeholders that mighthave previous experience of LCA.

28

4.4 Conclusions and recommendations related tocommunication

The reviewed standards and guidelines for environmental communication (ISO14063 2010; ISO 14021 2016; ISO 14026 2017) and environmental marketing(Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority 2002; ICC Commission on Marketingand Advertising 2011; Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Environmental Claims 2016)provide clear principles that can be also used for planning and preparing handprintcommunication. LCA standards (ISO14040-44) and their instructions for preparingcomparative claims are also valid and need to be applied in this context.

As handprint is a new concept, the scientific grounding of the approach needs tobe emphasized (e.g. by highlighting its compliance with the same standards that areapplied to footprint calculations) to avoid any association with greenwashing. Trans-parency and clarity are needed, especially regarding the baseline scenario and theorigin of the handprint. Transparency is important, since the result of the assess-ment is usually heavily affected by the assumptions made during the study. Whenonly carbon handprint is considered, it should be made clear that the claim relatesto climate impacts. In all cases, the message must be targeted according to theaudience (own employees, consumers, other companies, policy makers, otherstakeholders) taking into account their knowledge of the value chain and product inquestion, together with their general environmental awareness.

In addition, interested parties should be informed how and where they can getfurther information. This information does not have to be included in the productitself, but it should be easily accessible and in an understandable format – the latterbeing perhaps the biggest challenge. In addition, anyone presenting a handprintresult should be prepared to provide additional information and share original cal-culations, reports or relevant parts of them, and use critical reviews as a necessarythird party verification.

Due to the novelty of the concept, it is recommended to distinguish between in-formation on the handprint concept and information on case study results (actualhandprint results). Targeted communication of both the handprint concept and spe-cific case results will be needed during the introductory phase of the concept.

29

4.5 Checklist for planning and preparing handprintcommunication

To support the planning phase of handprint communication, we have compiled thefollowing checklist. The checklist follows the general principles of ISO14063 for en-vironmental communication and the specific questions correspond to the principleslaid out in the standard on footprint communication (ISO14026). The list is not ex-haustive and cannot be used as the sole guidelines for communication planning,but it provides a useful summary of basic principles and expands the scope ofhandprint guidance from calculation to communication. The aim of the checklist isto help in preparing environmental claims that are specific and that provide sufficientbackground information, thus avoiding generalized statements that could be easilyviewed as greenwashing.

30

·

Checklist for planning and preparing handprint communication

* Necessary information

Appropriateness

· Is the intended audience familiar with the product and the life cycle inquestion?

· Is the intended audience familiar with the life cycle assessment methodor the carbon footprint concept?

· Is the intended audience familiar with the carbon handprint concept?

Clarity

· * What is the quantity and reference unit of the calculatedhandprint?

· * What is the baseline scenario?· * Who is the customer using the product?· * What are the main contributors to the handprint (or mechanisms

behind emission reduction)?· * What year does the data and/or most important assumptions apply

to?· In which parts of the life cycle does the handprint (emission reduction)

take place?· What geographical area does the result directly or potentially apply to?· How significant is the handprint in comparison to the baseline footprint?· How significant is the quantity of the baseline footprint?

Credibility

· Which methods, guidelines and standards were used for the calcula-tions?

· Who was responsible for conducting the assessment?· Has the study been critically reviewed?

Transparency

· Is the original study available to the public?· Do you have a result report that can be made publicly available or shared

with interested stakeholders upon request?· * How can/will additional information be provided to interested par-

ties?· * Is a contact point for any further inquiries included?

31

5. Case studies

The case studies were selected to cover a range of products, services and pro-cesses in order for the methodology development to be applicable to different kindsof value chains and sectors. Examples of carbon handprints not only for productsbut also for services and technologies are presented.

The chosen case studies were: 1) base station cooling technology from a wire-less network service provider, 2) elevator technology from an elevator manufac-turer, 3) renewable diesel from a fuel manufacturer, 4) material for shopping bagsfrom a material manufacturer, 5) a carpet service from an interior design company,6) an additive manufacturing service from a 3D printing company, and 7) a bio-waste treatment solution from a composter manufacturer.

Each of the products was examined from the point of view of various customers.Both business-to-consumer products and business-to-business products were ex-amined. In order to ensure the applicability of the carbon handprint approach, po-tential customers included consumers, other companies and public organizations,and the products chosen covered many different industrial sectors. In addition, thestudied products represented both mass-produced products and tailor-made prod-ucts. The studied cases were also based on situations where several actors in thevalue chain were found to influence the carbon handprint creation.

The principal aim of the case studies was to test and develop the handprint con-cept and the assessment approach presented in this report. The case studies pre-sented here thus serve as examples of the applicability of the handprint concept todifferent contexts. The cases, as reported here, cannot therefore be used as exam-ples of full-scale handprint reports or benchmarks.

5.1 Base station cooling technology from a wireless networkservice provider

Radio base station sites are responsible for the majority of energy consumption andcarbon footprint of the wireless telecommunications infrastructure. This case studyconsiders Nokia’s liquid-cooled base station, which reduces energy consumption by15% compared to air-cooled base stations. Additionally, the liquid-cooled base sta-tion provides a source of excess heat for waste heat recovery. The heat is providedin liquid form from the cooling system, has a volume flow of approximately 2 litresper minute and a temperature between 50–60 °C. The product is shown in Figure7.

Liquid cooling of radio base stations brings several benefits. Firstly, liquid is asuperior heat transfer medium than air, which further enables radical device minia-turization and use of the most energy efficient technologies. Secondly, heat is easilystored and moved to other locations in liquid, enabling efficient waste heat reuse.Additionally, liquid cooling increases reliability and decreases maintenance de-mand, which also contribute to the handprint. Liquid cooling is a new technology for

32

base stations and forms part of Nokia´s zero-emission base station concept. Thecarbon handprint will be used in customer communication.

Figure 7. Nokia’s liquid-cooled base station.

Defining the customers and handprint contributors

Nokia has identified several applications for waste heat reuse, such as space heat-ing and cooling and hot water heating as well as industrial applications such asclean water production and electricity generating technologies. Five possible cus-tomers for the liquid-cooled base station handprint were identified:

· Customer 1: Telecom operator: handprint derives from reducing the energyconsumption of the operator.

· Customer 2: Telecom operator: handprint derives from reducing the energyconsumption of the operator and from avoiding concrete construction. Typi-cally, concrete constructions are needed to prevent heat dissipation to thebuilding and, e.g., roof structures.

· Customer 3: Telecom operator and heat utilizer: handprint derives from re-ducing the energy consumption of the operator and from recovering wasteheat as space heating, replacing district heating.

· Customer 4: Telecom operator and heat utilizer: handprint comes from re-ducing the energy consumption of the operator and by recovering waste heatfor hot water heating, replacing electricity.

· Customer 5: Clean water user: handprint derives from reusing waste heatfrom the base station. The water distilling liquid-cooled base station providesclean water where it is needed.

The framework for defining the handprint for the abovementioned customers is pre-sented in Figure 8. Handprints were calculated for customer cases 1, 3 and 4 asthese are considered the most important handprint applications.

33

Identify customersof the product

Identify potentialcarbon handprint

contributors

Define thebaseline

Define the systemboundaries

Calculate thecarbon footprints

By reducing the energyconsumption of operator

through more efficientcooling system

Air cooled base station inFinland during a specific

year

Air cooled base stationwith concrete

construction in buildingin Finland during a

specific year

Air cooled base station anddistrict heating productionin Finland during a specific

year

kg CO2eq. /full servicelifetime,

kg CO2 eq./capacity,kg CO2 eq./a

kg CO2 eq. / full servicelifetime,

kg CO2 eq. / capacity,kg CO2 eq./a

- Carbon footpri nt ofconcrete construction

- Finnish district heatproduction

Define thefunctional unit

Full service life time(10 years)

Full service lifetime (10years) and heating energy

(kWh)

Full service lifetime(10 years)

kg CO2 eq./full servicelifetime,

kg CO2 eq./capacity,kg CO2 eq./a

Calculate thecarbon handprint

Define data needsand sources - Number of applicable

base stations in Finland

- Number of applicablebase stations in Finland

- Th e carbon footprint ofconcrete construction

- Number of applicablebase stations in Finland

-Carbon footprint of districtheating production in

Finland

By reducing the energyconsumption of operator

through more efficientcooling system and byavoiding the need for

concrete construction inthe building

By reducing the energyconsumption of operator

through more efficientcooling system and of heatutilizer by recovering waste

heat of the base stationinstead of district heat

-Carbon footprint of air cooled base station-Carbon footprint of liquid cooled base station

Communicate theresults

Customer case 1:Telecom operator

Customer case 2:Telecom operator

Customer case 3:Telecom operator & heat

uti lizer

Nokia’s liqu id cooledbase station

Carbon footprints of the baseline solution and the carbon handprint sol ution following ISO 14040-44 and ISO 14067

Difference of the carbon footprints calculated

Critical review ofthe carbonhandprint

Not conducted, as this case was done for the needs of carbon handprint method development

Communicate the results respecting appropriateness, clarity, credibility and transparency

By reducing the energyconsumption of

operator through moreefficient cooling systemand of heat utilizer by

recovering waste heat ofthe base station instead

of electric heating

Air cooled base stationand hot water heating by

electricity in Finlandduring a specific year

Diesel generator in aspecific country during a

specific year

-Finnish electricityproduction

- Carbon footprint ofdiesel

Full service lifetime andpurified water (litre)

Full service lifetime (10years) and heating

energy (kWh)

By us ing the waste heatof the base station

(instead of heatproduced with dieselgenerator) for water

purification

Customer case 4:Telecom operator & heat

utilizer

Customer case 5:Clean water user

- Number of applicablebase stations in Finland

- Carbon footprint ofelectricity production in

Finland

- Carbon footpri nt ofdiesel

- Waste heat amountduring a full service

lifetime- Energy produced by

diesel generator- Amount of purified

water

kg CO2 eq./full servicelifetime,

kg CO2 eq. / capacity,kg CO2 eq. / a

kg CO2 eq. /full servicelifetime,

kg CO2 eq. / capacity,kg CO2 eq. / a

- Carbon footprint of the air cooled base station- Carbon footprint of liquid cooled base station

Figure 8. Carbon handprint framework for Nokia’s liquid-cooled base station.

34

Defining the baseline

The baseline case consists of an air-cooled base station without energy reuse. Inthe case of waste heat reuse, the baselines are electricity production and directheating production in Finland. In the water purification case, the baseline is the elec-tricity produced by diesel generator.

Defining the functional unit

The functional unit for handprint calculations of liquid cooling is the full service lifecycle of the base station, in this case 10 years. Carbon handprints are also calcu-lated per year. In cases where waste heat is reused, the additional functional unit isheating energy (kWh) per full service life cycle of the base station. In the case ofwater purification, the functional unit for handprint calculations is the amount ofwaste heat per year.

Defining system boundaries

The system boundaries of the base station liquid system handprint calculationscover cradle-to-grave life cycle inventory, i.e. manufacturing, transportation, useand end-of-life treatment. The system boundaries are the same for the baseline andhandprint solution.

Results

Customer cases 1, 3 and 4 are presented as examples of handprint calculation inthis study. The baseline case consists of the air-cooled base station without energyreuse. Carbon footprints of the base stations cover the whole service life cycle frommanufacturing to end-of-life treatment.

The liquid cooling handprint is derived firstly by reducing the energy consump-tion of the telecom operator and secondly by reusing waste heat of the base station.Handprints are calculated per base station, although radio base station sites typi-cally include several base stations. The handprint of customer case 1 (energy con-sumption decreased by 15%) is 170 kg CO2 eq./y (Figure 9). The handprint of cus-tomer case 3 (energy consumption decreased by 15%, and waste heat reused asspace heating replacing district heating) is 970 kg CO2 eq./y (Figure 10). Thehandprint of customer case 4 (energy consumption decreased by 15%, and wasteheat reused as space heating replacing electricity) is 930 kg CO2 eq./y.

35

Figure 9. Handprint of liquid-cooled base station due to operator energy consump-tion being reduced.

Figure 10. Handprint of liquid-cooled base station due to energy consumption ofoperator being reduced and waste heat recovered.

36

Conclusions

The growing demand for mobile data is a strong driver for developing energy effi-ciency improvements for the telecommunication sector. Radio base station sites areresponsible for the majority of energy consumption of the wireless telecommunica-tion infrastructure. Most of the energy input to base stations is dissipated as heat,with approximately 75% of all energy consumed by the station being converted intowaste heat. The recently developed liquid cooling system in the base station ena-bles more energy efficient heat transfer in the cooling system while also providing ahot utility output from the station in the form of hot water. The resulting 15% energysaving compared to conventional cooling systems is a major handprint contributor,but even more significant environmental benefit is achieved when waste energy isreused. In this handprint calculation no GHG emissions were allocated to wasteheat. The conversion of 200 building sites (with three base stations per site) fromair-cooled to liquid-cooled and with waste heat reused to replace electricity or districtheat, the handprint would be more than 550,000 kg CO2 eq./y. As a result of thisproject, handprinting has been incorporated as part of Nokia's responsibility com-munication.

5.2 Elevator technology from an elevator manufacturer

The KONE MonoSpace® 500 elevator is designed for primarily passenger transportin residential and office buildings and for installation in both new and existing build-ings with modernization needs. The MonoSpace 500 uses innovative and energyefficient technologies for lifting, lighting and stand-by operations and thus has a po-tential handprint. It is an electric elevator, with a gearless traction drive system. Ithas a rated load of 320–1150 kg, a speed of 0.63–1.75m/s, and a travel height ofup to 24 floors (75 m). The expected life time of the KONE MonoSpace 500 is 25years. In this project, the elevator was assumed to have a load of 630 kg, a travelingspeed of 1.0 m/s, and a travel height of 12 m (5 floors). The product is illustrated inFigure 11.

37

Figure 11. KONE MonoSpace 500. Copyright: KONE 2018.

Defining the customers and handprint contributors

KONE MonoSpace500 can be used in a wide range of building types from residen-tial to public, such as offices, hotels or shopping centres. The potential customerstherefore also range widely from, for example, building owners to global real estateinvestors. The elevator can be installed in a new building or used to replace an oldelevator in an existing building. The following customers were identified as potentialusers of a handprint product:

· Customer 1: Residential building owner who decides to install a KONE Mon-oSpace 500 elevator as a new installation or a modernization. The baselineis the reference elevator.

· Customer 2: Residential building owner who decides to install a KONE Mon-oSpace 500 elevator as a new installation or a modernization. The baselineis the energy efficiency class of the reference elevator.

· Customer 3: Office building owner who decides to install several (5–10)KONE MonoSpace 500 elevators as new installations. The baseline is eitheran LCA study or the energy efficiency class of the reference elevator.

The framework for defining the handprint for the abovementioned customers is pre-sented in Figure 12. The calculation for Customer 2 was demonstrated and re-ported.

38

Identify customersof the product

Identify potentialcarbon handprint

contributors

Define thebaseline

Define the systemboundaries

Calculate thecarbon footprints

By reducing the energyconsumption of a residential

building through new elevatorinstallation or modernisation

Other new elevators from othermanufacturers or from KONE, if

specific LCA data is available,used in a specific country during

a specific year

Use stage in a specif ic countryduring a specific year in otherenergy efficiency classes, if no

specific LCA data for otherpossible elevators is avail able

Similar to residential building cases,i.e. either a specifi c LCA of another

alternative elevator or energyefficiency compariso n

kg CO2 eq. / tkmkg CO2 eq. / a

kg CO2 eq. / full service lifetime

kg CO2 eq. / tkmkg CO2 eq. / a

kg CO2 eq. / full service lifetime

Carbon footprints of elevators Carbon footprints of elevators Carbon footprints of elevators

Define thefunctional unit

- tkm travelled with the elevator-full service lifetime

- tkm travelled with the elevator-full service lifetime

- tkm travelled with the elevator-full service lifetime

kg CO2 eq. / tkmkg CO2 eq. / a

kg CO2 eq. / full service lifetime

Calculate thecarbon handprint

Define data needsand sources

- Number of elevators in thebuilding

- Carbon footprint of alternativeelevator and Mono500

- Energy efficiency class ofalternative elevator

- Energy efficiency class ofalternative elevators according

to ISO 25745-2 (2015)-Electricity production data in

the usage location- Rated load, no. of trips per day,

non-running ti me per day,traveling distance

- Number of lifts in the building- Carbon footprint of a specific

alternative elevator- Energy efficiency of alternative

elevator according to ISO 25745-2(2015)

- Rated load, no. of trips per day,non-running time per day, traveling

distance

By reducing the energyconsumption of a residential

building through new elevatorinstallation or modernisation

By reducing the energy consumptionof an office building through new

elevator installations

- Number of elevators in the buil ding- Carbon footprint of alternative elevator and Mono500

- Energy efficiency class of alternative elevator

Communicate theresults

Customer 1:Residential

building owner

Customer 2:Residential

building owner

Customer 3:Office building

owner

KONE’s MonoSpace 500elevator

Carbon footprints of the baseline solution and the carbon handprint solution following ISO 14040-44 andISO 14067

Difference of the carbon footprints calculated

Critical review ofthe carbonhandprint

Not conducted, as this case was done for the needs of carbon handprint method development

Communicate the results respecting appropriateness, clarity, credibility and transparency

Figure 12. Carbon handprint framework for KONE MonoSpace 500.

39

Defining the baseline

The challenge in this case study is to define the baseline solution, i.e. alternativereference elevator against which the KONE MonoSpace 500 could be compared.Elevator types range hugely, from hydraulic to gearless and geared traction withdifferent speeds and travel heights and loads, and manufactured from different ma-terials in many locations by several manufacturers – it is therefore very difficult orimpossible to define an ‘average elevator’ to be used as a baseline product. Never-theless, the full life cycle from material acquisition, component manufacturing andassembly to installation, use, maintenance and finally end-of-life solutions needs tobe considered in the handprint calculations.

As elevators are products with a long life cycle and energy is used for their oper-ation, their use stage is often the most important life cycle stage when carbon foot-print is considered. The ISO 25745-2 standard ‘Energy performance of lifts, escala-tors and moving walks. Part 2: energy calculation and classification for lifts (eleva-tors)’ (ISO 25745-2:2015) defines energy efficiency classes for elevators, from A-G, depending on the energy consumption level per day. The energy efficiency clas-ses depend on the specific running energy for the average running cycle. If the ratedload, number of trips per day, average running distance and the non-running timeper day are kept constant, the energy efficiency of different elevators can be com-pared based on these specific running energy consumptions. The rest of the lifecycle can be considered to remain the same as that of the KONE MonoSpace 500.Thus, the energy consumption of the KONE MonoSpace 500 can be compared tothese other energy efficiency classes and the handprint of the KONE MonoSpace500 can be estimated, keeping in mind that the other life cycle stages could alsoplay an important role in the results, either increasing or decreasing the handprint,if actual data was available.

Defining the functional unit

The functional unit for handprint calculations of the KONE MonoSpace 500 can betonnes per kilometre travelled, or per year, or per full service lifetime of the elevator,in this case 25 years.

Defining system boundaries

The system boundaries of an elevator handprint include the life cycle of the elevatorfrom cradle to grave, with special focus on electricity consumption in the use stage.The manufacturing of the elevator remains the same, but the electricity producedfor the use stage is country-specific depending on the use location, as this has amajor impact on the carbon footprints and handprint. The system boundaries arethe same for the baseline elevator and the handprint elevator.

40

Results

Customer 2 is used as an example case for handprint calculation in this study. Theactual use stage data of the KONE MonoSpace 500 was used in the energy con-sumption calculations and the results were compared to the values of energy effi-ciency class boundaries A–F. Four different electricity production profiles wereused, namely Sweden, France, European average and global average. Thehandprint of the KONE MonoSpace 500 varied from 10 kg CO2 eq./year (comparedto energy efficiency class A elevator with Swedish electricity) to 12 650 kg CO2

eq./year (compared to energy efficiency class F elevator with global average elec-tricity). Below are example figures of the handprint results when the elevator is usedin Europe (baseline solution: energy class B (Figure 13) and D (Figure 14) and inSweden (baseline solution: energy class B (Figure 15)).

Figure 13. Handprint of the elevator when used in Europe by Customer 2 andcompared to elevator in energy class B (calculation based on ISO 25745 method-

ology with 630 kg load, 1.0 m/s speed, and 12 m height).

41

Figure 14. Handprint of the elevator when used in Europe by Customer 2 andcompared to elevator in energy class D (calculation based on ISO 25745 method-

ology with 630 kg load, 1.0 m/s speed, and 12 m height).

Figure 15. Handprint of the elevator when used in Sweden by Customer 2 andcompared to elevator in energy class B (calculation is based on ISO 25745 meth-

odology with 630 kg load, 1.0 m/s speed, and 12 m height).

42

Conclusions

Elevators tend to be essential products that are not replaceable with alternative so-lutions, particularly if the travel height is considerable or stair use is otherwise notviable. Therefore, the choice between different elevator options for a given buildingcan create a handprint. In this example, the handprint is created by minimizing theelectricity consumption of the elevator in the use stage. The handprint of an elevatoris greatly dependent on the system boundaries and assumptions used in the study,such as the use location and fuel profile of electricity used during the use stage.Since there are no ‘average elevators’ that could be used as a baseline, thehandprint should be based on actual LCA studies of alternative elevators or, if thisis not available, on the energy consumption in the use stage, since the energy effi-ciency can vary greatly between different elevators.

As a test case for the handprint methodology, this case study shows the hugeimpact that the baseline and the usage location can have on a handprint of a prod-uct. KONE plans to use handprint calculations in its product development for lowcarbon solutions.

5.3 Renewable diesel from a fuel manufacturer

In this case study, a hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) fuel (see case brand in Figure16) is examined. The fuel is produced from used cooking oil. By using the renewablefuel in their vehicles, customers have the potential to reduce their greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions.

Figure 16. Neste’s renewable diesel. Copyright: Neste 2018.

43

Defining the customers

Three different customer types are identified for the diesel fuel:

· Customer 1: consumers using the fuel (private car owners)· Customer 2: logistics operators· Customer 3: cities, companies and other organizations with vehicle fleets

The customers are identified based on the function and purpose of use of the prod-uct. The function of the renewable diesel is to act as a motive power for diesel-operated vehicles. Consumers consist of all customers using fuel for their own pur-poses to move from one place to another. For logistics operators, the purpose is tomove objects from place to place. For cities, companies and other organizations,the purpose is to provide their employees with travel mobility. Cities, companies andother organizations can therefore be classed together as a customer type.

The framework for defining the handprint for the abovementioned customers ispresented in Figure 17. The carbon handprint calculation is conducted for customer2, a logistics operator with one vehicle.

44

Identify customersof the product

Identify potentialcarbon handprint

contributors

Define thebaseline

Define the systemboundaries

Calculate thecarbon footprints

Reduce the GHGemissions of diesel

operated vehicles bychanging to less GHG

intensive fuel

Average diesel* used inconsumer-driven

vehicles in Finland in2016

Current diesel or averagediesel* used in vehiclesof the logistics operatorover the past year in the

operation location

Current diesel or averagediesel* used in vehiclesdriven by organization

employees over the pastyear in the operation

location

Reduced GHG% per km Reduced GHGs/ annualtravel kms

Wel l-to-Wheel Well-to-Wheel Well-to-Wheel

Define thefunctional unit MJ MJ

*Average diesel: average diesel fuel sold and used in Finland in 2016

MJ

Reduced GHGs/ annualtravel kms

Calculate thecarbon handprint

Define data needsand sources

Fossil and renewablecarbon contents andheati ng values of the

fuels

Travelled kms based onprevious year and

whereabouts regardingthe availability of

Neste’s RD

Travelled kms and fuelconsumption based on

previous year andwhereabouts regarding the

availability of Neste’s RD

Reduce the GHGemissions of diesel

operated vehicles bychanging to less GHG

intensive fuel

Reduce the GHG emissionsof diesel operated vehicles

by changing to less GHGintensive fuel

Carbon footprint of the baseline diesel (e.g. from LIPASTO database, standardSFS-EN 16258) and Neste’s RD

Communicate theresults

Customer 1:Consumers

Customer 2:Logistics operator

Customer 3:City, company, and otherorganizations with vehicle

fleets

Neste renewable dieselmade of used cooking

oil

Carbon footprints of the baseline solution and the carbon handprint solutionfollowing ISO 14040-44 and ISO 14067

Difference of the carbon footprints calculated

Critical review ofthe carbonhandprint

Not conducted, as this case was done for the needs of carbon handprint methoddevelopment

Communicate the results respecting appropriateness, clarity, credibility andtransparency

Figure 17. Carbon handprint framework for Neste’s renewable diesel.

45

Defining the handprint contributors

Neste’s customers have the potential to reduce their traffic-related GHG emissionsby using the diesel produced from renewable and waste-based raw materials. Ac-cording to directive 2009/28/EC, waste and residue-based raw materials have zerolifecycle greenhouse gas emissions up to the process of collection of those materi-als. In this case, the biogenic carbon intake equals the number of released biogeniccarbon emissions, resulting in zero net biogenic CO2 emissions.

Defining the baseline

The renewable diesel needs to be compared to fuel(s) that similarly provide motivepower for diesel engines. When considering consumers as the customers, theyhave a vast number of possible fuels to choose from so no single, specific baselineproduct for comparison can be specified. Therefore, the average diesel fuel soldand used in Finland during the previous full year (2016) was selected as the base-line fuel, consisting of a mix of fossil diesel and 12% bio-based diesel (LIPASTO2017). Annual statistics of market area specific fuel consumption are likewise well-suited to be used as a baseline.

If the logistics operators, cities, companies and other organizations can be spec-ified, the baseline fuel can be defined more accurately and the currently used dieselcan be chosen as the baseline fuel.

Defining the functional unit

The functional unit of the study could be annual distance (km) driven per vehicle ifthe annual total figure for the vehicle is known. If the total kilometres driven cannotbe determined, the lower heating value of the fuel in megajoules can be used as afunctional unit. Using megajoules can be useful in the case of consumers wheredriving distances are not known or not available, e.g., from bookkeeping records.Companies usually keep records of annual mileage data, which can be used to cal-culate the GHG reduction based on actual annual kilometres driven.

Defining system boundaries

In this case, the fuel is burned in the motor of a vehicle and, thus, the product sys-tems of fuels and vehicles are considered as part of the system boundary. It wasassumed that different fuels do not differ in how they decrease or reduce the lifetimeor efficiency of a motor. Thus, the analysis focused on the use phase while otherlifecycle phases were excluded from the analysis. The system boundary fits the def-inition of the Well-to-Wheel (W-to-W) approach. The system boundaries are thesame for both the baseline and handprint solutions.

46

Results

The carbon handprint calculations were carried out for a logistics operator that ownsone vehicle. The examined vehicle operates in the Helsinki region of Finland, con-sumes 6 litres of diesel per 100 km, and had an annual mileage in 2016 of 130,000km. The logistics operator had no information on the GHG emissions of the fuelused in 2016. The GHG emissions of average diesel was therefore used as a base-line. When the density (0.824 kg/m3), lower heating value (43 MJ/kg), and emissionsper litre of the baseline diesel (SFS-EN16258, 2012; LIPASTO, 2017) are known,the consumed energy and total emissions per year can be estimated. Based on thegiven values, 6 litres of baseline diesel per 100 km accounts for 2.1 MJ per km.

The availability of the fuel must also be taken into account when calculating thecarbon handprint. As the fuel was available only at a limited number of fuel stations,it was estimated that the distance to the nearest station selling the examined renew-able diesel was approximately 10 km longer than the closest station. Consideringthe tank size of the examined vehicle (50 l), the annual distance travelled, and theroundtrip to the nearest station selling renewable diesel, the logistics operator hadto refill the tank more frequently compared to the situation in 2016. Annually, basedon the increased number of fillings and the distance to the selected station, thetravelled distance increased by approximately 3,200 km.

The logistics operator saved 21 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year after switchingfrom average diesel to renewable diesel (Figure 18). The impact would be multipliedif the logistics operator had a fleet in the same region and all vehicles switched torenewable fuel.

Figure 18. Handprint of the renewable diesel made from used cooking oil whenused by a logistics operator using one vehicle.

47

Conclusions

Results of the renewable diesel handprint calculation indicate that switching thebaseline diesel to renewable diesel provides the user with clear potential to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. Based on this, the renewable diesel made of used cook-ing oil has a certain handprint. It must be remembered, however, that this handprintis linked to a specific customer (logistics operator with certain annual driven kilome-tres) using the renewable diesel instead of the baseline fuel (average diesel fuel mixsold in Finland in 2016). This handprint can thus be used in communicating thecarbon footprint reduction potential that the renewable diesel can provide for thisspecific customer.

Setting the baseline for this case study was relatively straightforward becausethe fuel sector in Europe has detailed regulations and reliable statistics in place andthe data for the average baseline fuel could therefore be easily acquired.

5.4 Biodegradable shopping bags from a materialmanufacturer

The Paptic bag is a shopping bag made almost entirely of wood fibre. The bag isrecyclable and combines the beneficial qualities of both paper and plastic. The Pap-tic material can be used to replace both plastic and paper bags and packaging ma-terials. The idea of the bag is to offer a biodegradable packaging material that, iflittered or landfilled, will break down safely in the environment and not accumulatein marine organisms, thus providing an environmentally responsible alternative toconventional plastic packaging. The product is shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Paptic bag.

48

Defining the customers and the handprint contributors

Paptic bag is assumed to replace either plastic or paper bags. As consumers be-have in many different ways and waste management options differ regionally, thenumber of uses may vary and there are different possibilities for the end-of-life stageof potential baseline solutions. Some examples of possible customers for Papticbags and the baseline solutions are identified as follows:

· Consumer 1: uses plastic bag with end-of-life recycling, would use Papticbag 1 time like plastic bag

· Consumer 2: uses plastic bag with end-of-life recycling, would use Papticbag 5 times

· Consumer 3: uses plastic bag with end-of-life incineration, would usePaptic bag 1 time like plastic bag

· Consumer 4: uses plastic bag with end-of-life incineration, would usepaptic bag 5 times

· Consumer 5: uses paper bag with end-of-life recycling· Consumer 6: uses paper bag with end-of-life incineration· Retail/Brand Owner (RBO): Plastic bags. Assumed annual consumption

5 million bags

Based on earlier studies, it can be assumed that the new material has potentially alower carbon footprint compared to plastic bags of the same size and correspondinggrammage. Furthermore, the motivation of using Paptic bag multible times may behigher than when using typical plastic or paper bags thus lowering the overall envi-ronmental impact of the Paptic bag user. The assumption that the Paptic bag couldbe used several times is based on the design of the bag and the usability and dura-bility of the Paptic material compared to the plastic bag. Therefore also customersusing Paptic bags five times versus the one-time use of plastic bags are identified.

Another positive environmental benefit for the Paptic bag could be the reductionin marine plastic pollution achieved by using Paptic bags instead of plastic bags.This benefit applies especially to developing countries in which waste managementsystems are often ineffective or non-existent. This impact category, however, is out-side the scope of the carbon handprint.

The framework for defining the carbon handprint for the abovementioned cus-tomers is presented in Figure 20. The calculation for Consumer 3 was selected tobe demonstrated and reported as an example. Incineration is still currently the mostcommon way of getting rid of plastic waste. However, due to increasing demandsrelated to recycling of plastic packaging, other Customer profiles may become morerelevant in the future.

49

Figure 20. Carbon handprint framework for Paptic bag.

50

Defining the baseline

The baseline against which the Paptic bag is compared in the selected case of Cus-tomer 3 is a plastic bag made from polyethylene including 10% of recycled plasticrepresenting a typical plastic bag in the market.

Defining the functional unit

The functional unit for handprint calculations of the Paptic bag is a bag, and totalamount of bags / year.

Defining the system boundaries

The system boundaries in the calculated case include the bag production from cra-dle to end-of-life incineration. The main raw material used in the Paptic bag is woodpulp, so raw material acquisition starts with forestry, whereas the PE bag cradletraces back to oil pumping. The collection and transport of the bags to incinerationare left outside the boundaries, as they are the same for both options.

Results

For the Consumer 3 (baseline: plastic bag with end-of-life incineration) the Papticbag gets a carbon handprint of 56 g CO2 eq./bag when the bags are incinerated atend-of-life (Figure 21). The biggest share of the handprint comes from the end-of-life stage where incineration of plastic accounts for ~70% of the handprint comparedto the Paptic bag, which is assumed to have zero impact on climate change at end-of-life. Also the production from cradle to gate of a Paptic bag has a lower carbonfootprint than plastic bags.

51

Figure 21. Handprint of the Paptic bag, Consumer 3.

Conclusions

A carbon handprint is created when Paptic bags are used to replace plastic bagsthat end up in incineration. It is foreseen, however, that the size of the handprintvaries considerably depending on the Customer. The results are sensitive for ap-plied assumptions related to the assumed baseline materials, the number of timesthe bags are used and the end-of-life options. Increasing the number of use timeswould furthermore increase the carbon handprint of the Paptic bag. In this casestudy the handprint was calculated for a fictitious customer in order to test the meth-odology. In reality, it is likely that the bags would end up in many different end-of-life options and several scenarios would be needed to ensure comparability andtransparency of the results if applied for consumer or customer communication.

5.5 Carpet with optional cleaning service from an interiordesign company

AO-allover’s INNOcarpet products (example shown in Figure 22) are used in publicbuildings such as schools, conference rooms and entrance halls. They are madefrom wear-resistant, non-slip materials (e.g. polypropylene or nylon PA6-6 with ni-trile butadiene rubber) and can be custom made in various shapes, sizes and col-ours. In addition to manufacturing carpets, AO-allover offers a 3–5 year on-site IN-NOcarpet cleaning service. The INNOcarpet case was chosen in order to test theapplicability of the handprint approach to services.

52

Figure 22. INNOcarpet. Copyright: AO-allover 2018.

Defining the customers

INNOcarpets are designed primarily for use in public buildings such as schools,offices and hotels. Private consumers are not the main target customers. The car-pets can be customized according to the customer’s wishes and delivered with orwithout the optional cleaning service. The following two potential customer typeswere identified:

· Customer 1: Public building owner using INNOcarpets without the cleaningservice

· Customer 2: Public building owner using INNOcarpets with the cleaning ser-vice

The framework for defining the handprint for the above customers is presented inFigure 23. The case was assessed qualitatively and no actual handprint calculationswere made.

53

Identify customersof the product

Identify potentialcarbon handprint

contributors

Define thebaseline

Define the systemboundaries

Calculate thecarbon footprints

By using high-quality materials, the carpet lastslonger in use than average carpets even

without the on-site cleaning service. The carpetcan also be remanufactured.

A carpet with shorter usage time with noremanufacturing. Market area: Finland in a

speci fic year

Two carpets are needed for a specific floorarea: one is used while the other one is

transported and/or being cleaned elsewhere(e.g. carpet laundry). No remanufacturing.

Market area: Finland in a specific year

Reduced GHG emissions of the carpet per m2, kg / year or

kg / full lifetime

Carbon footprint of carpet(s), including usagetime, cleaning with transportations, and end-of-life with remanufacturing of the handprint

product (allocation to the ”new product”)

Carbon footprint of carpet(s), including usagetime, cleaning with transportations, and end-of-life with remanufacturing of the handprint

product (allocation to the ”new product”)

Define thefunctional unit

Carpet m2/yearCarpet m2/year

Reduced GHG emissions of the carpet per m2,kg / year or

kg / full lifetime

Calculate thecarbon handprint

Define data needsand sources

- usage time- cleaning frequency

- transportation to/from cleaning-cleaning chemicals

- electricity consumed during cleaning- end-of-life: remanufacturing

- usage time- cleaning frequency

- transportation to/from cleaning-cleaning chemicals

- electricity consumed during cleaning- end-of-life: remanufacturing

By using the on-site cleaning service, the needfor a second carpet during cleaning is avoided,

the need for transportation to and fromcleaning location is removed,

and remanufacturing is possible for the carpet.

Carbon footprints of carpet(s), including usage time, cleaning with transportations, and end-of-life with remanufacturing in the handprint product (allocation to the ”new product”)

Communicate theresults

Customer 1:School or otherpublic building

owner 1

Customer 2:School or otherpublic building

owner 2

AO-allover carpet withoptional cleaning

service

Carbon footprints of the baseline solution and the carbon handprint solution following ISO14040-44 and ISO 14067

Difference of the carbon footprints calculated

Critical review ofthe carbonhandprint

Not conducted, as this case was done for the needs of carbon handprint method development

Communicate the results respecting appropriateness, clarity, credibility and transparency

Figure 23. Carbon handprint framework of the INNOcarpet.

54

Defining the handprint contributors and the baseline

The difference between INNOcarpet and the baseline service is that cleaning canbe done on-site instead of transporting the carpet to and from an external laundry.This also eliminates the need for a replacement carpet to be provided during clean-ing.

Defining the functional unit

The functional unit for handprint calculations of INNOcarpet with a possible cleaningservice can be carpet m2, or per year, life cycle of the carpet, e.g. 5 years.

Defining system boundaries

The system boundaries of a carpet handprint include the cradle-to-grave life cycleassessment of the carpet, including cleaning alternatives. INNOcarpet products canalso be remanufactured at the end-of-life stage, which can be considered in theassessment by allocating a proportion of the manufacturing impacts to the next lifecycle. If actual handprint calculations were made, the system boundaries for thebaseline and handprint solutions should be the same.

Results

Customer 2, using INNOcarpets with the cleaning service, was considered a quali-tative example case in this project. The potential handprint of the product is createdvia reduced transportation emissions due to the on-site cleaning service and theeliminated need to manufacture and deliver a replacement carpet. In addition, thepossibility of remanufacturing the carpet at its end-of-life stage increases thehandprint of the product. However, the cleaning stage can decrease the handprintif the chemicals used in INNOcarpet cleaning are more GHG intensive than thoseused in the conventional cleaning of the reference solutions. In addition, the usagetime of the INNOcarpet and reference carpets needs to be defined carefully to en-sure comparable results.

Conclusions

INNOcarpet products with a cleaning service can achieve a carbon handprint. Ad-ditionally, the customer-specific shape, material and colour options can serve morethan only decorative purposes. If, for example, the carpet material could be provento bind dust more efficiently than the reference carpets, other handprints could alsobe attained, such as improvements to human health. From the climate change per-spective though, the main improvement is the on-site cleaning service that can bepurchased with the carpet.

55

As a test case for the handprint methodology, this case study showed that themethodology works also for services and not only products. In addition, the benefitsof remanufacturing can also be considered through allocation.

5.6 Additive manufacturing technology

AM Finland specializes in 3D printing of metals using additive manufacturing tech-nology. The company uses laser melting to manufacture products according to thecustomer’s designs. There are various routes by which an additive manufacturingservice provider could derive a carbon handprint: For example by improving theperformance of a product with an additively manufactured component, by reducingthe mass of a product, by creating a novel design leading to improved energy effi-ciency, or by having the ability to quickly provide spare parts in situ. These possibil-ities are further discussed in the conference paper by Leino et al. (2018).

Defining the customers

In this case no specific customer is identified in order to safeguard producer andclient confidentiality. Instead, an imaginary, though realistic microturbine manufac-turing case for AM Finland’s additive manufacturing service is presented. Theframework for defining the potential handprint for additive manufacturing is pre-sented in Figure 24. The case was assessed qualitatively and no actual handprintcalculations were made.

56

Identify customersof the product

Identify potentialcarbon handprint

contributors

Define thebaseline

Define the systemboundaries

Calculate thecarbon footprints

Manufacturing a microturbine which increases the end product performanceby

a) enabling constructing novel designs of cooling channels for an impelleràimproved efficiency with increased turbine inlet temperature

b) enabling mass reduction of a shaftà increased rotational speed withpossible efficiency improvement

Microturbine manufactured for electricity production with conventionalmanufacturing method, machining, and without novel impeller cooling

channels

Reduced GHG emissions per annually produced electrici ty (/kWh)

Cradle-to-grave

Define thefunctional unit

Producing 30 kW electric power with natural gas

Calculate thecarbon handprint

Define data needsand sources

-Primary data from the additive manufacturing phase -Primary data at least from the use phase from processes owned or controlled

by the customer’s company- At least modelled data for the baseline comparison

- At least modelled data for the use phase performance of microturbines

Communicate theresults

Customer using a microturbinefor distributed electricity production

AM Finland’sadditive manufacturingservice for microturbine

manufacture

Carbon footprints of the baseline solution and the carbon handprint solutionfollowing ISO 14040-44 and ISO 14067

Difference of the carbon footprints calculated

Critical review ofthe carbonhandprint

Not conducted, as this case was done for the needs of carbon handprintmethod development

Communicate the results respecting appropriateness, clarity, credibility andtransparency

Figure 24. Carbon handprint framework for the additive manufacturing technology.

57

Defining the handprint contributors

The customer is using a microturbine for distributed electricity production. With ad-ditive manufacturing a novel design of microturbine can be produced. This novelstructure increases the end-product performance by two means. First, novel coolingchannels for the impeller can be constructed. This can improve energy efficiency byenabling a higher turbine inlet temperature. Secondly, mass reduction of the shaftcan be achieved with additive manufacturing. This can lead to increased rotationalspeed with possible energy efficiency improvement.

Defining the baseline

The baseline product is a microturbine for the same purpose but manufactured withconventional manufacturing technology, i.e. machining. Machining does not allownovel impeller cooling channels.

Defining the functional unit

The functional unit for the handprint assessment can be specific, such as the outputpower produced by the microturbine using a specific fuel, e.g. 30 kW electric powerwith natural gas.

Defining system boundaries

System boundaries of the study would need to reach from cradle to grave. As thestudied microturbines are produced using different technologies and raw materials,the difference between the baseline and handprint microturbine will become evidentin the use phase. Because the end-of-life processes of the two microturbines mightdiffer, the full life cycle of the products are recommended to be included in the study.The system boundaries include the same life cycle phases for both the handprintsolution and the baseline solution.

Conclusions

Carbon handprint potential can be uncertain if it is not clear who is the initiator ofthe carbon handprint solution and who is needed in the value chain as enablers. Inthe present case, it could be contemplated whether the handprint benefit should beforwarded to the AM technology developer or to the user of the technology. In addi-tion, because the product design originates from the customer, the novel structuresof the product are initiated by the product designer rather than the AM service pro-vider. Therefore, the situation needs to be assessed case-by-case with a real cus-tomer in order to assess whether a handprint is created.

58

5.7 Biowaste treatment solution from a compostermanufacturer

The product studied in this case is the Biolan composter shown in Figure 25. It rep-resents a typical composter used by Finnish households. The composter enablesconsumers to process and utilize household biowaste independently instead of re-lying on centralized waste collection. The thermally insulated composter works allyear round, even in harsh Nordic winter conditions. The frost-resistant UV-protectedpolyethylene composter can process the volume of biowaste generated by up to 6persons per year (Biolan 2018).

Figure 25. Biolan composter. Copyright: Biolan 2018.

Defining the customers and the baselines

As the product users are general consumers with a wide range of behaviour patternsand living habits, there are numerous possibilities for how the composter is used. Inaddition, the baseline scenario of using no composter will differ depending, for ex-ample, on the communal waste treatment services available. The composter is prin-cipally used for disposing of household biowaste. For a proportion of householdscompost production is also valued as gardening compost would otherwise need tobe purchased. The potential handprint of the composter is therefore specific to dif-ferent households. Eight examples of potential customer types for composters areidentified below:

· Household 1: Biowaste is disposed of along with mixed waste and sent tolandfill. No compost is purchased by the household.

· Household 2: Biowaste is disposed of along with mixed waste and inciner-ated. No compost is purchased by the household.

59

· Household 3: Biowaste is disposed of along with general waste and inciner-ated. Some compost is purchased by the household.

· Household 4: Biowaste is disposed of along with mixed waste and inciner-ated during the cold season (6 months) and composted on site during thewarm season (6 months). Some compost is purchased by the household.

· Household 5: Biowaste is collected separately and processed in an anaero-bic digestion plant. No compost is purchased by the household.

· Household 6: Biowaste is collected separately and composted in a central-ized composting plant. No compost is purchased by the household.

· Household 7: Biowaste is processed according to the average Finnishhousehold: 1% landfilled, 6% incinerated, 19% treated in an anaerobic di-gestion plant and 74% composted. No compost is purchased by the house-hold. (Grönman et al. 2016)

Many more potential customer scenarios are possible in addition to the above; forexample, the number of persons in a household can also vary affecting thehandprint. The framework for defining the handprint for the abovementioned cus-tomers is presented in Figure 26. The calculation for household 3 was demonstratedand reported.

60

Identify customersof the product

Identify potentialcarbon handprint

contributors

Define the baseline

Define the systemboundaries

Calculate thecarbon footprints

Reduce householdGHG emissionsby changing the

biowaste treatment

Transport andtreatment of

biowaste mixed withother household

waste in centralisedwaste management

(landfill) in Finland in2016

Transport andtreatment of

biowaste mixed withother household

waste in centralisedwaste management

(incineration) inFinland in 2016

Transport andtreatment of biowaste

mixed with otherhousehold waste incentralised waste

management(incineration) in Finland

in 2016

Reduced GHGemissions of the

household, kg / year

Reduced GHGemissions of the

household, kg/year

If CH4 is capturedfrom landfill, it must

be consideredthrough system

expansion, replacingfossil fuels

Possible heat andpower produced

must be consideredthrough system

expansion, replacingaverage Finnish heat

and power.

Household 2 + compostproduction from cradle

to customer

Define thefunctional unit

Annual amount ofbiowastein a 4-

person household

Annual amount ofbiowaste and acquiredcompostin a 4-person

household

Annual amount ofbiowaste in a 4-

person household

Reduced GHGemissions of the

household, kg/year

Calculate thecarbon handprint

Define data needsand sources

- Data of mixedwaste collection

(transport distance,type of vehicle)

- CH4 emissions fromthe waste treatment

(landfill)- Change in

frequency of wastecollection (avoidedGHG emissions)?

- Data of mixedwaste collection

(transport distance,vehicle type)

- data of incinerationplant

- Average data ofFinnish heat and

power production- Change in

frequency of wastecollection (avoided

emissions)?

- Data of mixed wastecollection

- CH4 emissions fromthe waste treatment

-Amount andproduction data ofcompost replaced

- Change in frequencyof waste collection

(avoided emissions)?

Reduce householdGHG emissionsby changing the

biowaste treatmen

Reduce household GHGemissions by changing

biowaste treatmentand compostacquisition

Carbon footprint of the baseline cases. Carbon footprint of the composter cases.Amount of biowaste in kg and volume, amount of added composter bulking material, production and transportation of composter bulking material, production of

the composter, fossil CO2 emissions from the composter (peat in the bulking material).Data sources: e.g. Suomen Kiertovoima ry, Biolan, LIPASTO database

Communicate theresults

Household 1 Household 2 Household 3

Biolan composter

Carbon footprints of the baseline solution and the carbon handprint solution following ISO 14040-44 and ISO 14067

Difference of the carbon footprints calculated

Critical review ofthe carbonhandprint

Not conducted, as this case was done for the needs of carbon handprint method development

Communicate the results respecting appropriateness, clarity, credibility and transparency

Reduce householdGHG emissions bychanging biowaste

treatment andcompost acquisition

Transport andtreatment of

biowaste mixed withother household

waste in centralisedwaste management

(incineration) inFinland in 2016

Transport andtreatment of

biowaste mixed withother household

waste in centralisedwaste management

(incineration) inFinland in 2016

Transport andtreatment of biowaste

mixed with otherhousehold waste incentralised waste

management(incineration) in Finland

in 2016

Reduced GHGemissions of the

household, kg/year

Reduced GHGemissions of the

household, kg/year

Household 1 (6months) + compost

production fromcradle to customer +use of composter (6

months)

CH4 captured fromanaerobic plant

must be consideredthrough system

expansion, replacingfossil fuels.

The outputs from thecomposting plant mustbe considered through

system expansion.(What are the outputs

from the plant?)

Annual amount ofbiowaste in a 4-

person household

Annual amount ofbiowastein a 4-person

household

Annual amount ofbiowaste and

acquired compost ina 4-personhousehold

Reduced GHGemissions of the

household, kg / year

- Data of mixedwaste collection

- CH4 emissions fromthe waste treatment

-Amount andproduction data ofcompost replaced- Transportations

during the life cycle- Change in

frequency of wastecollection (avoided

emissions)

-Data of biowastecollection (transport

distance, type ofvehicle)

-Data for anaerobicdigestion plant

- CH4 conversion tofuels

- Production and usedata of replaced

fossil fuel

- Data of biowastecollection (transport

distance, type ofvehicle)

-Data for centralisedcomposting plant

Reduce householdGHG emissions bychanging biowaste

treatment andcompost acquisition

Reduce household GHGemissions

by changing thebiowaste treatment

Household 4 Household 5 Household 6

Transport andtreatment of biowaste

mixed with otherhousehold waste incentralised waste

management(incineration) in Finland

in 2016

Reduced GHGemissions of the

household, kg/year

Households 1-6 inappropriate %-shares.

Annual amount ofbiowaste in a 4-person

household

Data of households 1-6

Reduce household GHGemissions

by changing thebiowaste treatment

Household 7

Life cycle of biowaste (from household generation to end of waste treatment, including possible transportations)

Figure 26. Carbon handprint framework for the Biolan composter.

61

Defining the functional unit

The functional unit for handprint calculations in households 1–7 for a composter isthe annual amount of biowaste generated by a 4-person household. The handprintresults in this case are reported on a yearly basis as decreased CO2 equivalentemissions per household or per person.

Defining system boundaries

The system boundaries of the baseline solution and the composter handprint in-clude the life cycle of the biowaste, from generation in the household to the end ofwaste treatment, including possible transportations. The manufacture of the com-poster would be included in the calculations by dividing the emissions from manu-facturing by the expected lifetime of the composter, i.e. 30 years. Use of the com-poster also includes use of bulking material made from bark and peat, which isadded to improve and stabilize the moisture balance of the composting material.The bulking material makes up approximately 1/3 of the volume of biowaste. Thepossible emissions of fossil CO2 released from peat in the composter are consid-ered in the handprint calculation. The CO2 emissions from the biomass, though, areconsidered biogenic and thus climate neutral. No methane emissions are expectedif the composter is used and functioning properly.

If the treatment of biowaste creates outputs (such as soil or collected methanegas in the baseline options), the system boundaries should be expanded to alsoconsider the production and use of replaced (possibly fossil) materials. For exam-ple, methane produced at the anaerobic digestion plant would be converted to bio-fuels replacing fossil fuels, so also the production and use of those fossil fuels ofsimilar volume should be included in the baseline solution.

Results

Household 3 is used as an example case for handprint calculation in this project.The baseline solution consists of the carbon footprints of the collection, transporta-tion and incineration of the biowaste (together with mixed waste) and the productionof purchased compost. Since biowaste is typically very moist, the incineration plantuses additional energy to incinerate it, thus creating a footprint instead of producingenergy from the biowaste, and thus system expansion is not needed. The carbonfootprint of biowaste (from a 4-person household) treated within mixed waste incin-eration equals 10.4 kg CO2 eq./y.

The handprint of the composter is created by decreasing the amount of wastecollected, transported and treated at the incineration plant by composting the house-hold biowaste on site. At the same time, the frequency of waste collection can bereduced, saving transportation of mixed waste, and compost that was purchased inthe baseline is now produced on-site. On the other hand, the manufacture of thecomposter and the bulking material create a carbon footprint, which needs to be

62

considered in the calculation. Additionally, the bulking material includes peat, whichdecomposes in the compost, releasing some fossil CO2. When all of these aspectsare included in the calculation, the carbon footprint of biowaste composting in a four-person household equals 9.1 kg CO2 eq./y. The handprint of the composter inhousehold 3 is thus 1.3 kg CO2 eq./y (Figure 27).

Figure 27. Handprint of the composter for the Household 3 scenario: biowaste iscomposted on site and produced compost replaces purchased compost.

Conclusions

The potential handprint of a composter derives from reduced emissions from bio-waste collection, transportation and treatment. In addition, the composter producesgarden compost, which would otherwise be produced and purchased elsewhere bysome customers. Thus, the composter handprint relates to two units: biowaste treat-ment and compost production, although compost is seen as an unwanted by-prod-uct by some customers. For these customers, who would not otherwise purchasecompost, the system boundaries are different from those who would buy in compost.The calculation boundaries may also need system expansion in baseline solutionsthat produce, for example, heat or electricity in biowaste treatment plants. The def-inition of the baseline solution(s) is also challenging because the options for cen-tralized waste treatment vary in different communities and household biowaste gen-eration depends on the eating and behaviour habits of the customers. These factorsneed to be considered in a manner that describes the customer in the most accurateway possible. Consequently, the potential handprint of a composter is not constant,but always customer-specific.

63

On the other hand, the production of the composter and the bulking material frombark and peat decrease the handprint, as also does the composting of the peat inthe bulking material, which releases fossil CO2. Use of peat for bulking may be thesingle most important factor hindering a handprint result for a composter, dependingon the assumed composting reaction of the bulking material taking place in the com-poster.

As a test case for the handprint methodology, the composter revealed the im-portance of careful baseline definition and system boundary expansion in the caseof multiple output products or services.

64

6. Conclusions and discussion

The handprint approach proposed is targeted at companies and organizations thatare willing to quantify and communicate the environmental benefits of the products,services, or technologies that they offer to their customers.

As an additional advantage over carbon footprinting, carbon handprinting offersthe company two major benefits. The handprint approach forces companies to ex-tend their environmental responsibility beyond their gates. It urges them to custom-ize their product to fit the needs and preferences of each customer and to optimizethe product to the real-world operating environment in terms of GHGemissions andincreases cooperation along the value chain. Simultaneously, the handprint ap-proach gives companies the means to quantify the environmental benefits that theirproduct offers to their customers. Previously, these kinds of calculation guidelineshave been missing.

Secondly, carbon handprinting offers companies a tool for managing their cli-mate impacts. This approach has its roots in the measuring of footprints, but insteadof stopping there it requires the conductor to place the product being assessed inthe surrounding environment, in the actual use of their customers, in a consistentway. This improved calculation might not only reveal the climate benefits but alsothe possibility that no handprint is created, which can be determined when com-pared to the baseline product in the same market. If so, this will provide a clearindication to the company to rethink their product and to optimize its carbon footprintthroughout its lifecycle. Handprint thinking is shifting the decision-making processfrom conventional towards a strategic decision-making process, where the long-term objective is to produce and use climate friendly solutions. The positive mindsetof the approach emphasizes that actors involved are solving the challenge insteadof just causing more greenhouse gas emissions.

As with any method, carbon handprinting also has its limitations. Calculating acarbon handprint can be laborious, as two footprints need to be calculated, both themodified practice and the baseline practice, also beyond the factory gates. Thesame difficulties as with carbon footprinting are therefore also encountered, suchas acquiring reliable data for comparison. However, the process creates a greatdeal of valuable information that can be used for product development and max-imising the environmental benefits created.

Due to the novelty of the handprint concept, specific emphasis should be put onplanning and preparing communication related to both the handprint concept andthe results of handprint assessments. Whenever making claims about positive en-vironmental impacts based on handprint assessment, it is important to specify theclaim, make it understandable to the target audience and present it together withthe relevant information needed to correctly interpret the result. Within communica-tion, transparency and clarity is needed especially regarding the baseline scenarioand the origin of the handprint. Transparency is important, since the result of theassessment is usually heavily affected by the assumptions made during the study.When only carbon handprint is considered, it should be clear that the claim is related

65

to climate impacts. According to the existing guidelines for environmental marketingand green claims, evidence for the claim should be made available (e.g. by publish-ing the original study or parts of it). Furthermore, in order to increase the credibilityof the handprint concept, a critical review by a third party is recommended.

6.1 Handprint concept’s applicability to other environmentalimpacts

At this stage, the handprint methodology is applicable to assessing greenhouse gasemissions reduction. In the future, the carbon handprint methodology could be ap-plied to other environmental impacts related to, for example, water use, raw materialconsumption, energy consumption, waste production, circular economy, and landuse. However, adjustments to the current methodology are first needed, for exampledue to the varying spatial scale of environmental impacts.

This extension would be beneficial in advancing environmental sustainabilitymore holistically. The need to extend the handprint methodology is evident as nu-merous companies and organizations are already considering the potential environ-mental impacts or benefits of their products or services also from other viewpointsbeyond greenhouse gas emissions, and stakeholders are increasingly demandinginformation on environmental sustainability. In general, adoption of the handprintconcept more widely would help change the mindset from focusing on the negativeto focusing on the positive – the many (business) opportunities to do the right thingto solve the pressing sustainability challenges, taking local and users’ needs as thestarting point for product and business planning. The handprint concept couldthereby significantly contribute to global sustainable development targets, such asAgenda 2030.

Water handprint could be the next handprint methodology to follow carbonhandprint. The most important reason for this is that an established calculationmethodology for water footprint exists as an ISO standardized methodology (ISO14046 and guidance document ISO/TR 14073) along with carbon footprint (ISO14067). Respectively, one of the main challenges in defining raw material, energy,waste, circular economy or land use handprint is the lack of scientific consensus inthe definition of the respective footprints and the lack of established footprint meth-odologies.

We recommend that the starting point for water handprint is water scarcityhandprint, which only considers the impacts of water consumption to water scarcityquantitatively. It is further recommended that water scarcity handprint is calculatedin accordance with the guidelines of ISO 14046, the examples of ISO/TR 14073,and by applying the newest scientific consensus methodology AWaRe (AvailableWater Remaining) (Boulay et al. 2018). Qualitative impacts on water availabilitycould be included in water handprinting in the future along with the development ofqualitative water footprint methodologies. The handprint methodology requires ad-justments in order to consider the locality of water use, for example with regard todefining the baseline.

66

Reduced consumption of raw materials could be easily included in a raw materialhandprint, including aspects related to material efficiency, avoiding losses, and re-placing products with immaterial services. However, positive environmental impactsand a possible handprint could also be derived if raw materials with environmentallymore beneficial qualities are preferred over poorer alternatives. For example, re-newable materials are selected over non-renewable materials, abundant materialsover scarce materials, recycled materials over virgin materials and materials withless environmentally or health hazardous qualities (e.g. toxicity) or less pollutingmaterials over poorer materials in that regard. A challenge in qualitative raw materialhandprinting is to determine objectively and case-by-case the preference criteriaunless, for example, applicable local legislation exists. Material selection could leadto adverse effects, such as shortened product lifetime.

Similar aspects apply to energy handprint. Quantitative energy handprint calcu-lations could take into account measures related to energy consumption, efficiency,savings, losses and avoided energy use. A qualitative energy handprint would re-quire qualitative criteria for better energy sources with regard to, for example, re-newable vs. non-renewable energy, CO2 intensity and air pollution. Determiningbest possible local energy sources is often a complex and controversial issue withno absolute answers. Moreover, qualitative aspects of energy handprinting coulddepend on local sensitivity to pollution and even social aspects of energy supplychains.

A waste handprint could simply indicate the quantity of reduced, avoided waste.If the quality of produced waste is considered in the waste handprint, then the wastehierarchy is firstly reusable waste, then recyclable waste, and then otherwise recov-erable waste (2008/98/EC). Discussion about a possible waste handprint quicklyleads to a discussion about choices in the product planning phase, such as rawmaterial selection, recyclability, the circularity of product chains, versatile products,the abandonment of throwaway culture, and the principles of circular economy. It isimportant, therefore, that raw material, waste and circular economy handprints aredeveloped together in line with each other.

A handprint for land use could quantitatively consider avoided land area use andland use efficiency aspects. Land use includes qualitative issues that are often as-sociated with other environmental or social impacts. The impacts of land use changecould also be considered. Qualitatively, the use of less vulnerable land areas withregard to, for example, ecosystems and biodiversity (Bruckner et al. 2015; Mattilaet al. 2011; O’Brien et al. 2015), carbon stock, water quality and availability (Bruck-ner et al. 2015), soil quality and productivity (Bruckner et al. 2015; Mattila et al.2011), topsoil degradation (O’Brien et al. 2015), cultural or recreational values andviolation of land-use rights could be included in the land use handprint of a productchain.

The abovementioned suggestions are summarized in Table 1. In conclusion, ap-plication of the handprint methodology to other environmental impacts requires fur-ther research. Because handprinting is currently exists as a method of quantifyingenvironmental impacts, the starting point for methodology development could bequantitative environmental impacts and quantifiable qualitative aspects. Handprint

67

research could be further extended to developing a multi-criteria product environ-mental handprint or even a sustainability handprint, to pinpoint and avoid possibletrade-offs and compromises between environmental handprints.

Table 1. Summary of the applicability of handprint concepts in other environmentalimpacts.

Env.impact

Footprintstarting point

Challenges Recommendation

Wateruse

ISO standardizedmethodology for wa-ter footprint (14046& 14073)

Inclusion of waterquality issues. Lo-cality.

1. Quantitative aspects:• water scarcity

2. Qualitative aspects• water quality

Energycon-sump-tion

Possible applicablelocal legislation;Publications e.g.(Kaltenegger et al.2017; Jeon et al. 2015;Chen & Lin 2008;Ferng 2002; De Bene-detto & Klemeš 2009;Pagani et al. 2016;Chakraborty & Roy2013)

Locality, in termsof availablesources and ac-ceptance

1. Quantitative aspects:• energy efficiency• avoidance of energy

use2. Qualitative aspects:• renewability• (local) availability• pollution intensity

Landuse

Possible applicablelocal legislation;Publications e.g.(WRI and WBCSD2006; Steen-Olsen etal. 2012; O’Brien et al.2015; Mattila et al.2011; Bruckner et al.2015; Perminova et al.2016; de Ruiter et al.2017)

Inclusion of landuse quality issues.

1. Quantitative aspects:• land use efficiency• avoidance of land use

2. Qualitative aspects:• vulnerability• carbon stock• water quality and

availability• soil quality and

productivity• topsoil degradation• cultural or recreational

valuesRawmate-rialcon-sump-tion

Possible applicablelocal legislation;Publications e.g.(Shigetomi et al. 2015;Lutter et al. 2016;Wiedmann et al. 2015;

Trade-offs in sin-gle product life cy-cle: What to priori-tize?

1. Quantitative aspects:• material efficiency• immateriality

2. Qualitative aspects:• renewability• availability

68

Bruckner et al. 2012;Giljum et al. 2016;Weinzettel & Kovanda2011; Muñoz et al.2009; Wang et al.2014)

• circularity• pollution intensity• environmental or

health hazards, suchas toxicity

Wastepro-duc-tion

Possible applicablelocal legislation;Publications e.g.(Entreprises pour L’En-vironnement WorkingGroup 2013; Beylot etal. 2017; Tisserant etal. 2017; Fry et al.2015; Jiao et al. 2013;Jensen et al. 2013;Tsukui et al. 2015)

1. Quantitative aspects:• reduced & avoided

waste2. Qualitative aspects:• reusability• recyclability• recoverability

Circu-larecon-omy

Publications e.g.(Tisserant et al. 2017;Kirchherr et al. 2017)

Inclusion of allprinciples of CE(raw material se-lection, design forrecycling andstructural design,circularity of prod-uct chains, versa-tile products,abandonment ofthrowaway culture,societal im-pacts…)

To be developed to-gether and in line withraw material and wastehandprints

References

Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 Novem-ber 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives (Text with EEA relevance)

16258, S.-E., 2012. Methodology for calculation and declaration of energy con-sumption and GHG emissions of transport services (freight and passengers),

Beckmann, J. et al., 2017. Der Handabdruck : Ein Ansatz zur Messung positiverNachhaltigkeitswirkungen von im Rahmen des Projekts „ Der Handabdruck :ein komplementäres Maß positiver Nachhaltigkeitswirkung von Produkten“

Beckmann, J., 2017. Handabdruck: ein komplementäres Mass positiver Nachhal-tigkeitswirkung von Produkten. Available at: http://www.handabdruck.org/pro-ject_en.php#project2 [Accessed October 2, 2017].

De Benedetto, L. & Klemeš, J., 2009. The Environmental Performance StrategyMap: an integrated LCA approach to support the strategic decision-makingprocess. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(10), pp. 900–906.

Beylot, A. et al., 2017. The Waste Footprint of French Households in 2020: A Com-parison of Scenarios of Consumption Growth Using Input-Output Analysis.Journal of Industrial Ecology, 0(0), pp. 1–13.

Biemer, J., Dixon, W. & Blackburn, N., 2013. Our environmental handprint - Thegood we do. 2013 1st IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability,SusTech 2013, pp. 146–153.

Bjørn, A. & Hauschild, M.Z., 2013. Absolute versus Relative Environmental Sustain-ability: What can the Cradle-to-Cradle and Eco-efficiency Concepts Learnfrom Each Other? Bjørn and Hauschild Cradle to Cradle versus Eco-effi-ciency. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(2), pp. 321–332.

Boulay, A.M. et al., 2018. The WULCA consensus characterization model for waterscarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on availa-

ble water remaining (AWARE). International Journal of Life Cycle Assess-ment, 23, pp. 368–378.

Bruckner, M. et al., 2012. Materials embodied in international trade - Global materialextraction and consumption between 1995 and 2005. Global EnvironmentalChange, 22(3), pp. 568–576. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloen-vcha.2012.03.011.

Bruckner, M. et al., 2015. Measuring telecouplings in the global land system: A re-view and comparative evaluation of land footprint accounting methods. Eco-logical Economics, 114, pp. 11–21.

Chakraborty, D. & Roy, J., 2013. Energy and carbon footprint: Numbers matter inlow energy and low carbon choices. Current Opinion in Environmental Sus-tainability, 5(2), pp.237–243. Available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.04.001.

Chen, C.Z. & Lin, Z.S., 2008. Multiple timescale analysis and factor analysis of en-ergy ecological footprint growth in China 1953-2006. Energy Policy, 36(5), pp.1666–1678.

Dahlbo, H. et al., 2013. Comparison of different normalised LCIA results and theirfeasibility in communication. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,18(4), pp. 850–860.

EC, 2008. DIRECTIVE 2008/98/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OFTHE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Direc-tives (Text with EEA relevance),

Entreprises pour L’Environnement Working Group, 2013. Protocol for the quantifi-cation of greenhouse gas emissions from waste management activities.,

European Commission, 2014. Consumer market study on environmental claims fornon-food products,

European Commission, 2009. SEC(2009) 1666 final. GUIDANCE ON THE IMPLE-MENTATION/APPLICATION OF DIRECTIVE 2005/29/EC ON UNFAIRCOMMERCIAL PRACTICES., Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/transpar-ency/regdoc/rep/2/2009/EN/2-2009-1666-EN-F-0.Pdf.

Ferng, J.J., 2002. Toward a scenario analysis framework for energy footprints. Eco-logical Economics, 40(1), pp. 53–69.

Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority, 2002. Consumer Ombudsmans’Guidelines: The use of environmentally oriented claims in marketing. Availa-

ble at: https://www.kkv.fi/en/decisions-and-publications/publications/con-sumer-ombudsmans-guidelines/by-subject/the-use-of-environmentally-ori-ented-claims-in-marketing/ [Accessed March 9, 2018].

Fry, J. et al., 2015. An Australian Multi-Regional Waste Supply-Use Framework.pdf.Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(6).

Giljum, S. et al., 2016. Identifying priority areas for European resource policies: aMRIO-based material footprint assessment. Journal of Economic Structures,5(1).

Grönman, K. et al., 2019. Carbon handprint – An approach to assess the positiveclimate impacts of products demonstrated via renewable diesel case. Journalof Cleaner Production, 206, pp.1059–1072. Available at: https://linking-hub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959652618329664.

Hand Print Action Towards Sustainability, Evolution of Handprint. Available at:http://www.handprint.in/handprint_legacy [Accessed June 6, 2017].

ICC Commission on Marketing and Advertising, 2011. Framework for ResponsibleEnvironmental Marketing Communications, Available at: https://ic-cwbo.org/publication/icc-framework-for-responsible-environmental-market-ing-communications-2011/.

ICCA & WBCSD, 2013. Addressing the Avoided Emissions Challenge. Guidelinesfrom the chemical industry for accounting for and reporting greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions avoided along the value chain based on comparative stud-ies. (October). Available at: https://www.icca-chem.org/wp-content/up-loads/2015/08/Addressing-the-Avoided-Emissions-Challenge.pdf [AccessedMarch 13, 2018].

ISO, 2013. ISO/TS 14067. Greenhouse gases. Carbon footprint of products. Re-quirements and guidelines for quantification and communication,

ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040 Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Prin-ciples and framework,

ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044. Environmental management. Life cycle assessment. Re-quirements and guidelines,

ISO, 2014. ISO 14046 Environmental management -- Water footprint -- Principles,requirements and guidelines,

ISO 14021, 2016. ISO 14021:2016 Environmental labels and declarations. Self-de-clared environmental claims (Type II Environmental labelling),

ISO 14026, 2017. ISO14026:2017 Environmental labels and declarations — Princi-ples, requirements and guidelines for communication of footprint information,

ISO 14063, 2010. EN ISO 14063:2010 Environmental management. EnvironmentalCommunication. Guidelines and Examples,

Jensen, C.D. et al., 2013. Responsibility for Regional Waste Generation: A Single-Region Extended Input –Output Analysis for Wales. Regional Studies, 47(6),pp. 913–933.

Jeon, H.W., Taisch, M. & Prabhu, V. V., 2015. Modelling and analysis of energyfootprint of manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Re-search, 53(23), pp.7049–7059. Available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2014.961208.

Jiao, W. et al., 2013. The Waste Absorption Footprint (WAF): A methodological noteon footprint calculations. Ecological Indicators, 34, pp. 356–360. Available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.05.024.

Kaltenegger, O., Löschel, A. & Pothen, F., 2017. The effect of globalisation on en-ergy footprints: Disentangling the links of global value chains. Hannover Eco-nomic Papers (HEP), 68(587), pp. 148–168.

Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. & Hekkert, M., 2017. Conceptualizing the circular economy:An analysis of 114 definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,127(September), pp. 221–232.

Leino, M. et al., 2018. Systematic approach for identifying possible greenhouse gasemission reduction possibilities with additive manufacturing. In Actions for asustainable world. From theory to practice. Book of papers. The 24th interna-tional sustainable development research society conference.

LIPASTO, 2017. LIPASTO. LIPASTO traffic emissions. Available at:http://lipasto.vtt.fi/ [Accessed December 1, 2017].

Lutter, S., Giljum, S. & Bruckner, M., 2016. A review and comparative assessmentof existing approaches to calculate material footprints. Ecological Economics,127, pp.1–10. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.03.012.

Mattila, T. et al., 2011. Land use in life cycle assessment, Available at:https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/37049/FE_24_2011.pdf?se-quence=3.

McDonough, W. & Braungart, M., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way WeMake Things 1st ed., New York: North Point Press.

Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Environmental Claims, 2016. Compliance Criteria on

Environmental Claims, Available at: https://ec.eu-ropa.eu/info/sites/info/files/compliance_criteria_2016_en.pdf.

Multi-stakeholder Dialogue on Environmental Claims, 2013. Environmental ClaimsReport from the Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue. Helping consumers make in-formed green choices and ensuring a level playing field for business, Availa-ble at: http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/in-dex.cfm?do=groupDetail.groupDetailDoc&id=27989&no=1.

Muñoz, P., Giljum, S. & Roca, J., 2009. The raw material equivalents of internationaltrade: Empirical evidence for Latin America. Journal of Industrial Ecology,13(6), pp. 881–897.

Nissinen, A. et al., 2007. Developing benchmarks for consumer-oriented life cycleassessment-based environmental information on products, services and con-sumption patterns. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(6), pp. 538–549.

Norris, G., 2013. CHAPTER Business and the Common Good: Some FundamentalIssues. In S. Groschl, ed. Uncertainty, Diversity and the Common Good:Changing Norms and New Leadership Paradigms. London: Gower Publish-ing.

Norris, G., 2015. Handprint-Based NetPositive Assessment. , p.17.

O’Brien, M., Schütz, H. & Bringezu, S., 2015. The land footprint of the EU bioecon-omy: Monitoring tools, gaps and needs. Land Use Policy, 47, pp. 235–246.

Outotec, 2015. How do we measure our handprint? - Outotec.

Pagani, M. et al., 2016. An assessment of the energy footprint of dairy farms inMissouri and Emilia-Romagna. Agricultural Systems, 145, pp. 116–126. Avail-able at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.03.009.

Patala, S. et al., 2016. Sustainable value propositions: Framework and implicationsfor technology suppliers. Industrial Marketing Management, 59, pp. 144–156.Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2016.03.001.

Perminova, T. et al., 2016. Methods for land use impact assessment: A review. En-vironmental Impact Assessment Review, 60, pp. 64–74. Available at:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.02.002.

Pihkola, H. et al., 2010. Communicating environmental impacts of print products,

Ramirez, E., Gonzalez, R.J. & Moreira, G.J., 2014. Barriers and bridges to the adop-tion of environmentally-sustainable offerings. Industrial Marketing Manage-ment, 43(1), pp. 16–24.

de Ruiter, H. et al., 2017. Total global agricultural land footprint associated with UKfood supply 1986–2011. Global Environmental Change, 43, pp. 72–81. Avail-able at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.01.007.

Shigetomi, Y. et al., 2015. Trends in Japanese households’ critical-metals materialfootprints. Ecological Economics, 119, pp. 118–126.

Steen-Olsen, K. et al., 2012. Carbon, land, and water footprint accounts for the Eu-ropean union: Consumption, production, and displacements through interna-tional trade. Environmental Science and Technology, 46(20), pp. 10883–10891.

Tisserant, A. et al., 2017. Solid Waste and the Circular Economy: A Global Analysisof Waste Treatment and Waste Footprints. Journal of Industrial Ecology,21(3), pp. 628–640.

Tsukui, M., Kagawa, S. & Kondo, Y., 2015. Measuring the waste footprint of citiesin Japan: an interregional waste input–output analysis. Journal of EconomicStructures, 4(1).

Tynkkynen, O. & Berninger, K., 2017. Nettopositiivisuus. Menestyvän ja vastuullisenliiketoiminnan uusi taso.

Wang, H. et al., 2014. Exploring China's materialization process with economic tran-sition: Analysis of raw material consumption and its socioeconomic drivers.Environmental Science and Technology, 48(9), pp. 5025–5032.

WBCSD & WRI, 2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol. A Corporate Accounting andReporting Standard,

Weinzettel, J. & Kovanda, J., 2011. Structural decomposition analysis of raw mate-rial consumption: The case of the Czech Republic. Journal of Industrial Ecol-ogy, 15(6), pp.893–907.

Wiedmann, T.O. et al., 2015. The material footprint of nations. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, 112(20), pp. 6271–6276. Available at:http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1220362110.

WRI and WBCSD, 2006. Greenhouse Gas Protocol - The Land Use, Land-UseChange, and Forestry Guidance for GHG Project Accounting, Available at:http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:YbSxVw-BOK38J:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&num=30&as_sdt=0,5.

Zamagni, A. et al., 2012. Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. InternationalJournal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(7), pp. 904–918.

rebmun dna eltit seireS

TTV ygolonhceT 643

eltiT dna gnissessa ot hcaorppa tnirpdnaH nobraC ehT fo tcapmi etamilc evitisop eht gnitacinummoc

stcudorp tcejorp tnirpdnaH nobraC eht fo tropeR laniF

)s(rohtuA ileH ,akkuoS otsiR ,alokhiP annaH ,alujaP aniiT ,namnörG asiaK ,nenataV ajiaS onieL ajiaM & namlliS inaJ ,lahtnehoH anirahtaC ,mheB irtaK ,nenirusaK

tcartsbA eht gnitacinummoc dna gnitaluclac rof sdohtem fo kcal a si ereht ,yltnerruC siht ,pag siht llfi oT .secivres dna stcudorp fo stcapmi latnemnorivne laicfieneb a fo tcapmi etamilc evitisop eht gnitaluclac rof hcaorppa wen a stneserp troper

tnirpdnah nobrac eht fo esoprup ehT .tnirpdnah nobrac eht – ecivres ro tcudorp stcudorp fo tcapmi etamilc evitisop eht etacinummoc dna ssessa ot si hcaorppa

dna secitcarp elbisnopser yllatnemnorivne gnizivitnecni ybereht ,secivres dna .seciohc demrofni gnilbane

fo tnirptoof nobrac eht gnirapmoc sevlovni hcaorppa detseggus eht fo eroc ehT dna ,tcudorp enilesab eht fo tnirptoof nobrac eht htiw tcudorp devorpmi na

eb nac taht snoissime sag esuohneerg ni noitcuder eht gnitaluclac yltneuqesbus si hcaorppa tnirpdnah nobrac ehT .tcudorp devorpmi eht gnisu yb deveihca

dna stnirptoof rof ygolodohtem tnemssessa elcyc efil dezidradnats eht no dednuof lanoitarepo lautca eht ni stcapmi etamilc gniyfitnedi rof krowemarf a sedivorp

.tnemnorivnehcihw ni ,seiduts esac lairtsudni neves no desab si tnempoleved lacigolodohteM

.dessessa era seigolonhcet dna ,secivres ,stcudorp tnereffid fo stnirpdnah nobrac ,etseN ,ENOK ,naloiB ,revolla-OA ,dnalniF MA htiw tuo deirrac ,seiduts esac esehT

.troper siht ni detneserp era ,citpaP dna ,aikoNsag esuohneerg eht yfitnauq ot stnirpdnah nobrac esu nac snoitazinagrO

nobrac ehT .stcudorp niatrec gnisu yb eveihca nac sremotsuc rieht taht snoitcuder yB .gnitekram dna snoitacinummoc ni loot lufrewop a sa evres suht nac tnirpdnah rieht woh tuo dnfi osla nac ynapmoc a ,stnemssessa tnirpdnah nobrac gnitcudnoc

nac stnirpdnah nobraC .stcudorp enilesab ot nosirapmoc ni sefiilauq tcudorp .ngised tcudorp gnolefil dna gnikam-noisiced troppus osla erofereht

ot detsujda eb nac ygolodohtem tnirpdnah nobrac eht ,hcraeser rehtruf hguorhT tnereffid edulcni redisnoc ot stcepsA .stcapmi latnemnorivne rehto revoc osla

dna lairetam fo stcepsa evitatilauq dna evitatitnauq dna stcapmi fo selacs laitaps stcapmi latnemnorivne evitatilauq elbafiitnauq dna evitatitnauQ .swofl ygrene

rehto ot ygolodohtem eht fo noisnetxe rof tniop gnitrats eht eb dluoc dluoc stnirpdnah latnemnorivne fo weiv evisnetxe erom A .stcapmi latnemnorivne

.stcapmi laicfieneb neewteb sffo-edart diova pleh

NRU ,NSSI ,NBSI NBSI 0-9768-83-159-879 )snoitacilbup/tcapmi/moc.hcraeserttv.www//:ptth :LRU( L-NSSI 1121-2422

NSSI X221-2422 )enilnO( :NBSI:NRU/fi.nru//:ptth 0-9768-83-159-879

/gro.iod//:sptth

etaD 8102 rebmeceD

egaugnaL tcartsba hsinniF ,hsilgnE

segaP .p 47

tcejorp eht fo emaN tnirpdnaH nobraC

yb denoissimmoC seinapmoc ,TUL ,TTV ,dnalniF ssenisuB

sdrowyeK evitisop ,tnirptoof nobrac ,tnirpdnah nobrac ,tnirptoof ,tnirpdnah tnemssessa elcyc efil ,tcapmi latnemnorivne

rehsilbuP dtL dnalniF fo ertneC hcraeseR lacinhceT TTV 111 227 020 .leT ,dnalniF ,TTV 44020-IF ,0001 xoB .O.P

oremun aj ajras nusiakluJ

TTV ygolonhceT 643

ekemiN netsutukiavotsamli netsiviitisop ikläjnedäkiliiH näätnitseiv aj niitnioivra

ittroparuppol nitkejorp-ikläjnedäkiliiH )t(äjikeT ileH ,akkuoS otsiR ,alokhiP annaH ,alujaP aniiT ,namnörG asiaK ,nenataV ajiaS

onieL ajiaM & namlliS inaJ ,lahtnehoH anirahtaC ,mheB irtaK ,nenirusaK

ämletsiviiT iat neettout navatsimytsehäl neduu ,nejläjnedäkiliih eelettise ittropar ämäT tämletenem tammesiakiA .niitnioivra neskutukiavotsamli nesiviitisop nulevlap aj ,neesimaavuk netsutukiavötsiräpmy netsiviitagen ännihäl teenutsurep tavo neesimättise netsutukiavotsamli netsiviitisop nediulevlap iat nediettout toniek

äiskytiry aatsunnak ikläjnedäkiliih nediettouT .teenuttuup tavo nesimeket nejotnilav aatsillodham aj nihiötnätyäk niisilluutsavötsiräpmy

.neutsurep nooteit neesilleeteit.nuuliatrev neikläjnalajiliih neettoutuliatrev aj neettout uutsurep ikläjnedäkiliiH

iov sakaisa aknoj ,ätsynnehävötsääpusaakenouhivsak aattiokrat ikläjnedäkiliiH namo itsesiakum nämletirääm nämäT .alluva neettout nutennarap aattuvaas yttetise assitropar ässäT .äekläjnedäk atsodoum ie synneneip nejläjnalajiliih

aj ninnioivrairaaknile nihiutiodradnats uutuajhop ämletenemikläjnedäkiliih iskesimatsinnut netsutukiavotsamli teettiup aaojrat aj niimletenem nejläjnalajiliih

.ässötsiräpmyatnimiot naakkaisaire niitioivra assioj ,atsumiktutsuapat nämesties iuluuk neeskytihekämleteneM

aimaasnaakia itsesillodham nedioigolonket aj nediulevlap ,nediettout ,nirevolla-OA ,nidnalniF MA ämäN .äiskynnehäv nejötsääpusaakenouhivsak

itseyhyl no teskumiktutsuapat nicitpaP aj naikoN ,neetseN ,neENOK ,ninaloiB .assitropar ässät ytletise

neeskäättirääm äekläjnedäkiliih äättyäk taviov toitaasinagro tuum aj teskytirY aattuvaas taviov asnaakkaisa nädieh aknoj ,neskynnehävötsääpusaakenouhivsak

anaakkohet aimiot netis iov ikläjnedäkiliiH .alluva nediettout nejuttennarap sytiry alluva nanneksalikläjnedäkiliiH .assinnionikkram aj ässännitseiv äneeniläv ninniomiskam nejytöyhotsamli tavatsillodham aktoj ,ajoniek aatsinnut söym iov

aj aoketneskötääp neskytiry aekut iov ikläjnedäkiliih nello niäN .assujtekovra .aulettinnuusetout

nihium söym aatlevos naadiov aitpesnokikläjnedäk asseduusiaveluT ,neeprat no atsiskutukiavötsiräpmy ire symekän ipmejaaL .niiskutukiavötsiräpmy

äkie ,assoetneskötääp adioimouh naadiov tamlukökänötsiräpmy ire attoj .neesiot atsakiap äterriis aiskutukiav

NRU ,NSSI ,NBSI NBSI 0-9768-83-159-879 )tusiakluj/fi.ttv.www//:ptth :LRU( L-NSSI 1121-2422

NSSI X221-2422 )usiaklujokkreV( :NBSI:NRU/fi.nru//:ptth 0-9768-83-159-879

/gro.iod//:sptth

akiausiakluJ 8102 uukuluoJ

ileiK ämletsiviit nenileiknemous ,itnalgnE

äräämuviS .s 47

imin nitkejorP ikläjnedäkiliiH

tajattiohaR teskytiryitkejorp ,TUL ,TTV ,dnalniF ssenisuB

tanasniavA neniviitisop ,ikläjnalajiliih,ikläjnedäkiliih ,ikläjnalaj ,ikläjnedäk itnioivrairaaknile ,sutukiavötsiräpmy

ajisiakluJ yO TTV sukseksumiktut naigolonkeT 111 227 020 .hup ,TTV 44020 ,0001 LP

dna gnissessa ot hcaorppa tnirpdnaH nobraC ehT fo tcapmi etamilc evitisop eht gnitacinummoc

stcudorp

NBSI 0-9768-83-159-879 :LRU( snoitacilbup/tcapmi/moc.hcraeserttv.www//:ptth ) 1121-2422 L-NSSI

X221-2422 NSSI )enilnO(:NBSI:NRU/fi.nru//:ptth 0-9768-83-159-879

/gro.iod//:sptth

YG

OL

ON

HC

ET

TT

V6

43

...

oth

ca

orp

pa

tni

rp

dn

aH

no

bra

Ce

hT

tnirpdnaH nobraCehT dna gnissessaot hcaorppa evitisop eht gnitacinummoc

stcudorp fotcapmietamilc

nenataVajiaS | namnörGasiaK | alujaP aniiT | alokhiPannaH | akkuoSotsiR | nenirusaKileH |

mheB irtaK | lahtnehoH anirahtaC | namlliS inaJ | onieL ajiaM

YGOLONHCET TTV 643